Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Widows

Dr. King: I beg to present on behalf of some 32,000 widows and other citizens a humble Petition calling attention to the economic hardships, as yet inadequately recognised by the State, of widows, especially of very aged widows, of widows between the age of 40 and 60 and of widowed mothers.
The Petition asks Parliament
to consider giving help to the widows of England along various lines, which I will not enumerate but which include the demand that all widows should receive a pension at the age of 50 and that widows who do not work should not have to pay National Insurance contributions.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Sir Edgar Whitehead (Talks)

Mr. Healey: asked the First Secretary of State if he will make a statement on his recent official talks with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler): When Sir Edgar Whitehead was in London passing to and from New York, I took the opportunity of having talks with him on a number of matters including his speeches in New York. These conversations were confidential.

Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that Sir Edgar Whitehead has now recognised Her Majesty's Government as responsible for the affairs of Southern Rhodesia by appearing as a member of Her Majesty's Government's delegation in

New York when these affairs were discussed at the United Nations, can the First Secretary say whether he pressed Sir Edgar Whitehead and made proposals for greater African representation in the Legislative Council in Southern Rhodesia and for the legalisation of Z.A.P.U. as the only representative national movement of the African people in that territory?

Mr. Butler: I cannot accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question as being correct. The constitutional position as betweeen the United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia, especially under the new Constitution, remains unaltered. I am afraid that I cannot reveal the contents of my conversations.

Mr. Healey: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how, if indeed Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility for Southern Rhodesia, it was possible for Sir Edgar Whitehead to appear as a member of Her Majesty's Government's delegation in New York?

Mr. Butler: It is true that Sir Edgar spoke from the United Kingdom seat, but I do not see any other way that he could have spoken, and the fact that he did speak did a great deal of good.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Did Sir Edgar Whitehead tell the First Secretary, as he subsequently told the Press in Southern Rhodesia, that the British delegates at the United Nations "did not really know anything about the case"? Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate this, and would he not agree that it was very disastrous for Britain's name that we replaced Sir Hugh Foot by Sir Edgar Whitehead as our principal spokesman?

Mr. Butler: The latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question does not represent the case at all. In regard to the alleged representations made to me by Sir Edgar Whitehead, I cannot reveal what was said in our conversations, but I would not accept any such stricture's on the British team.

Constitution

Mr. D. Foot: asked the First Secretary of State whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Constitution of


Southern Rhodesia in order to give greater freedom to political parties and to individuals.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Except for matters affecting the position of the Queen and the Governor, the amendment of the present Constitution is a matter for the Southern Rhodesia Legislature.

Mr. Foot: Arising out of that reply, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the African National Congress was banned in 1959, that its successor, the National Democratic Party, was banned last year, and that Z.A.P.U. was banned this year? How does he expect that any democratic constitution can function if organisations representing the majority of the people are forbidden to operate?

Mr. Butler: The only observation that I can make, without interfering in the affairs of Southern Rhodesia, is that all these organisations were banned because they decided to take unlawful means for prosecuting their ends. If they had not done so, I do not believe that they would have been banned.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees that certain responsibilities still rest on this House, and that if the Constitution in Southern Rhodesia results in the suppression of the parties of the majority, in the restriction of the liberty of individuals and in a situation which is a danger to the peace of a great part of Africa, surely it is time the right hon. Gentleman did something to secure a change in the Constitution which will provide for majority representation?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I do not think, especially since the new Constitution came into force on 1st November, that we have power to intervene in that way.

Sir H. Harrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this country there is a very large body of opinion which is right behind Sir Edgar Whitehead and the very wise leadership which he is giving to Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler: All I can say in reply is that anybody who reads his two speeches at the United Nations must realise that Sir Edgar Whitehead is inspired by liberal ideas. I therefore draw the attention of the House to these speeches, so

that hon. Members may draw their own conclusions.

Mr. Healey: Would the First Secretary agree that, whether Sir Edgar has liberal ideas or not, the fact that he has not only banned the only representative African party in the State, but has made it impossible for any of the leaders of that party ever to operate in a political capacity again in that State, produces a situation of intense danger to the European and African populations alike in the Territory, and is liable to expose this country, which still has the final responsibility, to serious disrepute in world opinion?

Mr. Butler: If I heard the hon. Gentleman aright, I would not accept that these African members of this party are banned for ever. It was only a limited time, if I understand it aright. In regard to the rest of the situation, I sincerely hope, as do all people who wish to see progress in these matters, that there will be a resolution of these problems in Southern Rhodesia.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICAN FEDERATION

Working Party (Report)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the First Secretary of State if he will publish the report he has received from his working party of experts on the financial and economic aspects of the links between the territories of the Central African Federation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The advisers, whose appointment I announced on 28th June, have reported to me personally and I do not intend to publish the advice which I have received from them.

Mr. Thomson: In view of the complexity of the problems and of the importance of having as many facts as possible in order to take cool decisions about them, would it not be immensely helpful to public opinion in this country and in Central Africa if it were to have the advantage of the information now before the First Secretary?

Mr. Butler: There is a Motion on the Order Paper and there should be an opportunity for discussing these matters in the House. I certainly did not want


a public inquiry. Any information which I can give to the House as a result of Her Majesty's Government's decisions or interim decisions I shall be very glad to give.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Situation

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the First Secretary of State what immediate action Her Majesty's Government is taking to prevent a deterioration in the situation in Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am not aware that the situation has deteriorated.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is not the First Secretary aware that the Constitution, which was, apparently, designed to produce deadlock, has in fact now produced deadlock? Does not the First Secretary agree that it will now be very important for the future of this territory to have a new Constitution which will allow the majority to have their wishes truly reflected? Quite apart from the need for a new Constitution, has not the result of the last election shown that the overwhelming mass of the people in the Territory are apposed to Federation, and how does the First Secretary intend to respond to that?

Mr. Butler: I think that the first thing for the First Secretary and the House to do is to await the result of the election. There are still ten frustrated National seats on which we hope to have some results, and there is one upper roll seat now vacant which has to be filled. It would be very wrong for me to make any further observations pending the result of the election.

Mr. Healey: Does not the result of the general election already show that it is dangerous futility to rely on a Constitution expressly designed to misrepresent the state of public opinion in Northern Rhodesia, and will not the First Secretary now take steps to implement the recommendation made by the Monckton Commission more than two years ago to produce an African majority in the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I can take no step or any decision in this until I see the result of the election.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND

Constitutional Conference

Mr. Goodhew: asked the First Secretary of State why the Convention African National Union is not presented at the Nyasaland Constitutional Conference.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Representation at the Nyasaland Constitutional Conference is based on membership of the Legislative Council. As the Convention African National Union has no such representative it was not invited to attend the Conference.

Mr. Goodhew: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this party has considerable support in Nyasaland, so much so that the Malawi Party has found it necessary to attack its headquarters and members of the party on five different occasions, without any prosecutions being instituted against it? Even if representatives cannot at this late stage be admitted to the Conference, will my right hon. Friend at least see them himself and hear their views?

Mr. Butler: These representatives have been interviewed at the Central African Office. They have submitted their suggestions in writing, which have been noted and taken into account by me personally. As regards seeing them, I have to bear in mind the variety of minority interests if I accede to the request of one section. Perhaps my hon. Friend will speak to me about this.

Newspaper Article (Publication)

Mr. Goodhew: asked the First Secretary of State what action has been taken in Nyasaland against the persons responsible for the publication of an editorial article in the Malawi News of Friday, 21st September, 1962, calling for violence against the person of a British journalist, Alan Hart.

Mr. R. A. Butler: This is a matter for the Attorney-General of Nyasaland. I am, however, making inquiries and will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Goodhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter happened some time ago, and that there is considerable


concern in Nyasaland whether the Attorney-General is prosecuting this sort of case as he might do? Will not my right hon. Friend have another look at this, because if it is allowed to go on unchallenged—a direct incentive to violence against the person by a newspaper—it will be thought that the Government are paying no regard whatever to law and order in Nyasaland?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I am awaiting the report, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Without wishing to comment on the incident to which the hon. Gentleman's Question refers, may I ask the First Secretary if he will bear in mind that the Malawi News is performing a very notable service in trying to create a more stable and constructive future for Nyasaland?

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Education

Mr. Swingler: asked the First Secretary of State what are the latest figures available in his Department showing the numbers of African children attending schools in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the proportion of children receiving some form of education, the public expenditure on education per child, and the fees payable where this applies, and the proportions of children staying on till school certificate level.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I am asking the Governments of both Territories for the latest information, and will write to the hon. Member when this is received.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the First Secretary for that reply and the action he has taken, may I ask him if he would be good enough, at the same time, to assemble and publish the same set of facts for European children in these Territories and also in Southern Rhodesia, so that, side by side, we can see what is the extent of the gulf which has to be bridged in the provision of education as between white children and black children?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I will look into that.

Mrs. Slater: Will the First Secretary also publish this in the OFFICIAL REPORT,

so that other people may benefit from this information?

Mr. Butler: What I will do is to examine the hon. Gentleman's suggestion and do my best to serve the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

Commonwealth Trade Centre

Mr. Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will take steps to encourage the establishment of a Commonwealth trade centre in London.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Nigel Fisher): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is not aware of a widespread desire on the part of other commonwealth countries for the establishment of such a trade centre in London.

Mr. Walker: Will my hon. Friend take into consideration the success of the American Trade Centre in London, and perhaps at least consult with the Trade Commissioners for the Commonwealth countries to see whether this is an idea which would help Commonwealth trade?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, Sir, of course; but my hon. Friend appreciates that new channels of trade do not necessarily increase the volume of trade. In fact, the Commonwealth Relations Office has not received any request at all for the establishment of such a centre.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAR EAST

Malaysia (Federation)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what steps he has now taken in respect of the formation of the proposed Malaysian Federation; and, in particular, what consultations he has had on this matter.

Mr. Fisher: I have been asked to reply.
The Intergovernmental Committee referred to in my right hon. Friend's statement in the House of 1st August is now engaged in its task. My noble


friend Lord Lansdowne will be presiding over a plenary meeting of the Committee in North Borneo this week.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, first, if he can say about what time the report will be made by this Committee; and, secondly, may I take it that the Brunei Protectorate is fully co-operating in the preparations for this Federation?

Mr. Fisher: It is rather difficult to say when the work of this Committee will be complete, but it is going well, and should, on present form, be complete, I hope, by the New Year.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister say whether Brunei is fully co-operating in the preparations for this Federation?

Mr. Fisher: Yes, Sir, as my right hon. Friend said in his statement on 1st August, the Sultan has been told that Brunei's inclusion in Malaysia would be very welcome. Brunei has sent observers, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, to the Intergovernmental Committee. We are not forcing a decision, but Brunei would be very welcome if she wishes to join.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Apprentices

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education how many courses have been arranged by local education authorities this autumn for the training and education of apprentices during their first year; and what number of enrolments were made.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Christopher Chataway): This information is not yet available, but I will send it to the hon. Member as soon as it has been received from local education authorities.

Mr. Boyden: Last year there was some progress, but not enough. Will the hon. Gentleman consider reviewing the results of Circular 9/1960 and seeing whether we can get every local authority to participate in this form of training and education?

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend will take that suggestion into considera-

tion. The situation should be clearer when we receive the replies from the local authorities, which should be very soon. They were asked to supply the information by 26th November.

Training College Students (French Language Courses)

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Education if he will make a statement on the course in French language and institutions at the University of Poitiers for training college students t whether similar courses are in operation at present; and what plans he has for organising similar courses at other centres abroad in other languages.

Mr. Chataway: This six-month course in France was introduced experimentally when the training college course was extended to three years. In 1961, 75 selected students training to teach French attended the first course at the University of Poitiers at Tours. Another 60 started the second course at Tours last July. A similar course for 25 students was held earlier this year at the University of Caen. My right hon. Friend hopes to announce shortly the arrangements to he made for next year. He has no plans for similar courses in other languages.

Mr. Boyden: I am sure that the House is grateful for that information and for the success of those particular courses in France. Will the hon. Gentleman consider arranging courses in German, Italian and, possibly, Russian in order that there may he a wider spread of interest in foreign language education?

Mr. Chataway: At the moment, it is a very small proportion of the students at these training colleges who are studying languages other than French. Should the numbers rise, that suggestion will be taken into consideration.

Mr. Boyden: Will the Minister take steps to stimulate progress? It is only by the growth of wider interest at the training colleges that there will be a spread of interest in other languages.

Mr. Chataway: The demands of the schools probably are changing ill this respect, and the teacher training colleges are very responsive to those changes.

Teachers (Exchanges)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education how many teachers were sent abroad on exchange with foreign teachers in the years 1955, 1961 and 1962, respectively.

Mr. Chataway: The numbers under schemes sponsored by my Department were 103, 90 and 76. The corresponding figures under the scheme for assistants, who take groups for conversation in their own language, were 440, 689 and 699. Assistants are mainly students, but include some teachers.

Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that exchanges with American and European teachers are of tremendous benefit to both foreign and British education and also in the interest of international friendship and understanding? Is it not regrettable that, although, as a result of an appeal some of us made, we have improved the financial conditions for the exchange of such teachers, the Minister has cut back the number steadily over the years? Will he look into the matter again and treat it in the generous way we are now beginning to treat the supply of teachers to the Commonwealth?

Mr. Chataway: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the beneficial effect of such exchanges. I think that the cut-back he refers to is applicable only to exchanges with America. He will notice that the number of assistants involved in such exchanges is rising very rapidly.

Holyhead County School

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Education when work on the extensions to the Holyhead County School are to commence

Mr. Chataway: The authority expects to go to tender very early in the new year, and I hope that it will be possible for building work to start in March or April, 1963.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that accommodation in this large comprehensive school of 1,400 pupils, one of the largest in Wales, is grossly inadequate? Does he know that, nearly two years ago, Lord Eccles, who was then Minister of Education, promised

me that the work would be started last year? Will the hon. Gentleman now give me a firm assurance that work will, in fact, be started in March as he has stated?

Mr. Chataway: Extensions to the school were included in the 1961–62 major building programme, and they make up the first stage of a very complicated remodelling scheme which has involved a considerable amount of planning. Both my right hon. Friend's Department and the local education authority are aware of the urgency of the project.

New County Secondary School, Cardiff

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the urgent need for a new county secondary school in Splott, Cardiff, in view of the conditions in which teaching is now being carried on; and if he will undertake to include financial provision for such a school in the 1964–65 programme.

Mr. Chataway: I know that the Cardiff local education authority is anxious to replace the existing school, but it has other projects which it rightly regards as more urgent. I cannot yet say when it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to authorise this work.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the last part of that Answer mean that he has not made up his mind yet or that he has made up his mind not to do so?

Mr. Chataway: The 1964–65 building programme has not yet been announced.

Mr. Callaghan: In that case, may I press on the Minister, as strongly as I can, the urgent need for this work to be done? Will he review whether it is accurate that Cardiff put this at the top of the list? I understood that it was bracketed at the top of its list with three other projects, all of which are vital. Is it not a measure of the failure of the Government that they are unable to give priority and attention to four projects in the City of Cardiff which need urgent action, as is agreed by every educationist of all parties in the city?

Mrs. White: May I, as one who lived in Cardiff for several years in the past, support what my hon. Friend has said


and ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look very seriously at this problem? The needs of the area are really urgent. Will he please do something about it?

Mr. Chataway: I shall certainly consider what is said. There are two projects in this area which are needed for the reorganisation of all-age schools, and they would, in the ordinary course of events, secure priority.

New School Places (Costs)

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Education what was the cost in 1961 of providing a new school place compared with 1951, taking into account increased building costs.

Mr. Chataway: About £120 for a primary school place and about £210 for a secondary school place, compared with £135 and £242 in 1951.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Will my hon. Friend see that all concerned are congratulated upon this very welcome piece of Government economy?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: In view of the satisfactory reduction in the cost of places, will the Minister now consider enormously increasing the number of places to be provided and expand the programme accordingly?

Mr. Chataway: Since 1951, there has, I think, been just as dramatic a rise in that respect as there has been a decline in the other.

Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while the economies have been partly the result of tremendously improved efficiency in the building industry and the work of his own Ministry, part of them is due to cutting back essential features in school construction? Will he consider very carefully the possibility of replacing some of the features which were cut out in the course of economies in many of the new schools which have lately been built?

Mr. Chataway: I think that the known respect in international circles for school building in this country belies what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mrs. White: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, although it is true that

excellent work has been done in many ways by the Architect's Department, what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has said is true also? Cuts have been made, for instance, in corridors, stairs and so forth, with the result that the time taken by children to change from one classroom to another has been very much increased because there is not enough space in the building. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are schools where economies have been achieved partly at the cost of speed of mobility?

Mr. Chataway: When criticisms are made, they are very rapidly brought to our attention by Her Majesty's inspectorate, and action is quickly taken upon them.

Expenditure

Sir Richard Pilkington: asked the Minister of Education what percentage of the national income was spent on education in 1951 and 1961, respectively.

Mr. Chataway: I refer my hon. Friend to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave on 26th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), which showed that the percentage of the gross national product spent on education in the United Kingdom rose from 3.1 in 1951 to an estimated figure of 4.4 per cent. in 1961.

Sir Richard Pilkington: Does my hon. Friend agree that the record of the Government in this respect is a very fine one indeed?

Mr. Chataway: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mrs. White: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the change in the balance of the population between those dates made it absolutely essential that we should spend more of our income on education?

Mr. Sydney Irving: Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that these figures have no significance unless they are related to need? When they are related to need, is it not quite clear that the Government are at every stage of education a long way from meeting the need to provide full educational opportunities?

Mr. Chataway: I find it difficult to follow that supplementary question. The total gross national product is not related to need. These figures clearly show that an appreciably higher proportion of our national wealth is today devoted to education.

Sir C. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend not be put off by the "sour-grapes" attitude of the Opposition?

Mr. Callaghan: If the Opposition cannot shake the intolerable complacency shown on the benches opposite about this matter, I can assure the Government that the people of this country will. [Interruption.] Do not the Minister and his supporters realise that there is a grave problem here in a large number of older schools which have overcrowding and bad facilities and where a great deal more needs to be done, and that this insufferable giggling by the Government supporters is getting more than we can bear?

Mr. Chataway: I do not mean to imply any complacency. It is expected that for the current financial year the percentage will rise again to 4·6.

Mr. Holt: Is not this a lower percentage than that of any other nation in Western Europe with a standard of living similar to that of Britain?

Mr. Chataway: That I most certainly do not accept. It is in fact a higher proportion than that of any country in Western Europe with the possible exception of Sweden.

School Transport Facilities (Tenders)

Mr. P. Browne: asked the Minister of Education what instructions are issued by his Department to local education authorities about tendering for school transport facilities.

Mr. Chataway: None, Sir; this is a matter for the local education authority.

Mr. Browne: I am fully aware of that, but will my hon. Friend try to ensure that the local education authorities, with which, after all, he has close liaison, when they receive and consider tenders for local bus services, take into account the private firms in particular which run stage services in rural districts, bearing in mind that we want to

keep our rural bus services in operation? They are already contracting quite enough.

Mr. Chataway: I know that that is a consideration in the minds of several local authorities, but it is not for my right hon. Friend.

Grammar and Technical School Places

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Education the average number of grammar and technical school places available per 1,000 of population in England and Wales, in Kent, and in the Maidstone educational division of Kent, respectively.

Mr. Chataway: In January, 1962, the numbers of pupils in maintained grammar and technical schools and streams per 1,000 of the population in England and Wales, Kent and the area of the Maidstone Divisional Executive were respectively 17·8, 20·8 and 19·2.

Mr. Wells: Could my hon. Friend differentiate between grammar and technical?

Mr. Chataway: Not without notice.

Minor Works

Mr. J. Wells: asked the Minister of Education what expenditure on minor works has been made in each of the past sixteen years.

Mr. Chataway: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware of the great need for a substantial increase in expenditure on minor works in those areas where substantial old church schools come under the authority? Unless there is an increase in these areas, it is manifestly unfair to the children living there contrasted with the position of their neighbours in other villages who are in better circumstances?

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend is very much aware of the need which exists in those instances. My hon. Friend will, of course, have noticed that the minor works allocation for the current year has recently been increased from £10 million to £16 million.

Mr. Willey: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that the £16 million is still less than the £21 million at which it once stood? Will he translate his right hon. Friend's enthusiasm into action by ensuring that the cut in the minor works programme is fully restored?

Mr. Chataway: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in some confusion, because the previous figure related to an 18-month period and not to a period of one year.

Following is the information:


EDUCATIONAL MINOR WORKS


(including school meals projects)


Financial year




Work done







£m.


1946–47
…
…
…
…
6·5


1947–48
…
…
…
…
5·8


1948–49
…
…
…
…
7·4


1949–50
…
…
…
…
9·3


1950–51
…
…
…
…
6·5


1951–52
…
…
…
…
4·9


1952–53
…
…
…
…
6·4


1953–54
…
…
…
…
7·8


1954–55
…
…
…
…
8·5


1955–56
…
…
…
…
12·4


1956–57
…
…
…
…
14·0


1957–58
…
…
…
…
16·7


1958–59
…
…
…
…
12·7


1959–60
…
…
…
…
14·9


1960–61
…
…
…
…
18·7


1961–62
…
…
…
…
15·2

Note: The figures relate to building work done and exclude land purchases, professional fees, furniture and equipment.

Swimming Teachers Association (Campaign)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Education what steps he is taking in schools under his control to help the campaign of the Swimming Teachers Association of Great Britain and the Commonwealth to promote by the inculcation of swimming physical development, health, human life saving, safety, sport and recreation; and why he has not directed that its new film, "The Last Week in Summer", be shown in all schools under his control in pursuance of that campaign.

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend wishes this campaign every success and is anxious that school children should learn to swim wherever facilities are available. He does not direct what films shall be shown in schools.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister of Education direct authorities to show films of the type like that indicated in the Question rather than Hollywood and other films which pervert youth, promote juvenile delinquency, encourage bank raids, encourage adults in gunmanship and murder, and waste the time of our law courts? Will he reform his curriculum in that way?

Mr. Chataway: I am sure that a number of schools will be interested in this film, but it is not up to my right hon. Friend to direct them as to the films that they should show.

Swimming Pools

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Education approximately how many schools have swimming baths or pools; how many of these are inside school buildings, with particular reference to those schools where classrooms are no longer needed for teaching owing to reduction of child population in the district.

Mr. Chataway: My right hon. Friend understands that a number of classroom pools are being installed in various parts of the country and he is asking some of the local authorities mainly concerned to keep him informed about this development. Information about the number of schools which have swimming baths or pools is not available.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister agree that this is an excellent development and that particularly when schools have redundant classrooms through the diminished school population. It is excellent if schools, both voluntarily and otherwise, get to work in order to install the kind of cheap pool which is in operation in a school in my constituency and about which no doubt the hon. Gentleman knows?

Mr. Chataway: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. We know about forty-six pools under construction at the moment.

Mr. Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that swimming pools should be provided by the voluntary efforts of parents and old boys and not at the expense of the taxpayer?

Mr. Chataway: No, Sir; I do not think that that would be possible in all cases.

Dr. King: In Hampshire, nearly three dozen such swimming pools have been provided by parent-teacher associations showing a keen interest in the school, with the local authority making provision for their maintenance and permanent accommodation. Will the hon. Gentleman obtain details of this and circulate them to other authorities?

Mr. Chataway: I am aware of such cases, and my right hon. Friend is making inquiries from certain local education authorities.

Primary Education (Inquiry)

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Education what is the nature of his proposed inquiry into primary education; and by whom it will be carried out.

The Minister of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): I am considering whether such an inquiry is desirable and, if so, by whom it should be conducted. I hope to make a statement on this subject early in 1963.

Mrs. White: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed the last report of the Registrar-General, and does he realise that, after 1947, the highest birth rate occurred in 1960? Therefore, his problem in 1965, or that of his successor from this side of the House, which is more likely, will be intense unless something further is done to provide more teachers for these schools.

Sir E. Boyle: We are discussing the question of teachers later. I have studied the report to which the hon. Lady refers. No doubt she has studied the interesting article in the National Economic Review on this subject. The important point is that it is thirty years since the last major inquiry into primary education. I am concerned not merely with the quantitative problem, but with the question of whether we are as well informed as we might be about what happens today in the primary schools.

Sport (Wolfenden Committee's Recommendations)

Mrs. White: asked the Minister of Education what further steps he is taking to promote the recommendations of the Wolfenden Committee on Sport.

Sir E. Boyle: The Youth Service building programme for England and Wales in the current year has been increased in size from £3 million to £4 million to include projects providing facilities for sport.

Mrs. White: While that is gratifying as far as it goes, is not the Minister aware that it is still a good deal less than was recommended by the Wolfenden Committee? Has he had any conversations with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the other recommendation of the Wolfenden Committee, namely, that there should be a sports development council, a project which was very warmly supported by the present Parliamentary Secretary before he attained office?

Sir E. Boyle: I assure the hon. Lady that all these matters axe under constant consideration by my right hon. Friends. At the moment, I am placing the emphasis on the development of sports facilities for young people. The level of grants towards the cost of sports facilities for adults provided by voluntary bodies is £400,000 a year. Next year, 1963–64, the Youth Service building programme will also include sports projects. We must remember that plans for new schools, training colleges and further education establishments in other parts of our building programme include facilities for sport. I assure the hon. Lady that we are keeping this matter in mind as part of the general capital investment programme.

Teacher Training Colleges (Married Women)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education if he will publish in HANSARD a list of the day colleges for the training of teachers which are making provision for married women with responsibilities for children of school age, and give details of the arrangements they make to enable such women to combine attendance for training with the performance of their domestic duties.

Sir E. Boyle: I will publish a list of the eight day colleges specially concerned in the OFFICIAL REPORT. These were set up primarily for older students, including married women with children,


and their whole organisation and timetable have been planned accordingly. The mainly residential colleges, which now take fairly large numbers of day students, also help married women in every way they can.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that there is accumulating evidence that he is losing potential recruits in this respect? A number of married women with young children would become teachers if the colleges had a flexible new programme to provide places for them. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this situation?

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman brings any evidence to my notice, I will, of course, consider it.

Following is the information:

Brentwood, Essex
Chorley, Lancashire
James Graham, Leeds
Manchester
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Sidney Webb, London
Swinton, West Riding
Wolverhampton.

School-Leaving Age

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education when he will make a statement on the raising of the school-leaving age.

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot at present add to the statement by my predecessor on this subject in the debate on 21st March, 1960.

Mr. Willey: But does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that unless he makes a decision soon he will not be in a position to implement the recommendation in the Crowther Committee's Report?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Gentleman will recollect that the former Minister gave a very full statement on this subject. He recognised the conditions which had to be satisfied, and he ended his statement by saying:
This should enable us, before the end of this Parliament, to make a decision about the school-leaving age."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1960; Vol. 620, c. 48.]
I still stand by his statement and I am sure that the hon. Member will be the first to realise that it is a question of

timing here, and one cannot consider timing apart from the broad question of priorities.

Mr. Willey: I also notice and I have previously said that if the Government delay the decision it will be for purely General Election purposes and no other.

Sir E. Boyle: I am sorry, but I refuse to start electioneering now with the hon. Gentleman.

Teachers (National Advisory Council's Recommendations)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Education whether he will make a statement on the recommendations of the National Advisory Council on the Training and Supply of Teachers and what action he has taken to alleviate the shortage of teachers.

Sir E. Boyle: I have told the Council that the Government are ready to consider some further expansion of the training colleges. I am at present studying advice which the Council recently offered me about how this expansion could best be undertaken. Meanwhile, the emergency measures to which I referred in the debate on 30th July last are already taking effect. This year's intake to the training colleges, which was expected to be smaller than the first two intakes to the three-year course of 1960 and 1961, has in fact reached a new record of over 17,000 students.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is too late to avoid the difficulties in the primary schools, but will he take steps now to avoid the difficulties we had with the first bulge affecting the second bulge which is now entering the schools? Does he recognise that this does mean a crash programme for more teachers?

Sir E. Boyle: I certainly recognise that this is by far the biggest problem affecting the educational world at present and I do not feel complacent about it. I am considering very carefully exactly how our investment in training colleges can produce the best possible return in terms of the output of teachers. Nevertheless, I think it was a very good achievement this year that, with no young trainees leaving the colleges, we were able to achieve an intake of 17,000. It


was far better than any of us envisaged when we started the expansion programme a few years ago.

Mr. Willey: In view of the gravity of the position, will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement to the House and tell us what steps he proposes to take?

Sir E. Boyle: I cannot add any further to the Answer I gave this afternoon, but I can assure the hon. Member that this is a matter I am examining urgently.

Mr. Jennings: In examining the extension and expansion of training colleges, will my right hon. Friend look closely into the possibility of extending day training courses particularly with regard to education departments of provincial universities, where, I think, it would be much easier to deal with the shortage of teachers and their prospective training in the next five years, than the actual building of training colleges, as a short-term measure?

Sir E. Boyle: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I can assure him that I am well aware of the fact that when we consider this matter we must bear in mind not merely the training colleges but the education departments of universities as well.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Green Belt, Cardiff, (Planning Application)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if, in view of the large number of families in Cardiff seeking homes who are unable to afford to purchase a house, he will give an assurance that the planning permission given to George Wimpey & Co. Ltd. to develop the Green Belt at Llanedeym, Cardiff, will in no way prejudice the application by the Cardiff City Council to acquire the land in order to build houses to rent.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir K. Joseph): I have already done so in the letter of 7th November giving my decision on Messrs. Wimpey's planning appeal. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Callaghan: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the inspector will get details of the number of homeless families in Cardiff who are unable to afford to purchase a house and who are probably in greater need than any other section?

Sir K. Joseph: All these considerations will come out at the public inquiry next week.

Unused Land

Mrs. Braddock: asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will ask local authorities who have large slum clearance problems to supply him with a report of all land standing idle in their areas, its ownership, length of time unused, and eventually planned use.

Sir K. Joseph: My Department's circular 37/60, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Lady, asked planning authorities to inquire into unused land in their areas. In the particular case of the northern towns with severe slum problems, the Northern Housing Office which I have recently set up, will be examining all these matters with the local authorities.

Mrs. Braddock: Yes, but will the Minister see that land which has been standing unused in a disgusting condition in my constituency is visited by some representative of the Ministry and that a full report is prepared and submitted to him about what its possible use will be?

Sir K. Joseph: No, but I assure the hon. Lady that each site will be considered by my Ministry with the local authority to see that it is put to some use, housing or other.

Mrs. Braddock: But how are we going to know—how am I going to know—what land has been looked at, what arrangements are to be made about it, and whether the land which can be used for housing will be tried, and what steps will be taken to speed up housing?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady and I share the same purpose, to increase the housing pace in Liverpool. If she cares to discuss this with me in detail I shall be glad to see what I can do to help.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose to President Kennedy the formation of a joint scientific research team to study aspects of disarmament, including methods of detecting underground tests.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): We are of course always looking for ways of making progress with disarmament. But I doubt whether the setting up of formal machinery to cover, one area of consultation and joint effort could give better results than the present system of frequent and intimate exchanges between the Americans and ourselves. These cover the problem in all its aspects, and ensure that the results of research done in the United States and here are co-ordinated.

Mrs. Castle: But if we are in earnest in wanting to achieve an all-embracing test ban, ought not the Western Governments to be inviting scientists to contribute ideas as to how underground tests can be more effectively detected, and is it not really a scandalous state of affairs that a prominent seismologist like Professor Don Leet, the seismologist in charge at Harvard University, cannot get his ideas tested either by his own Government or by Her Majesty's Government?

The Prime Minister: Well, the question is simply the best machinery for the purpose. At present our scientists are in the closest co-operation with American scientists, and share all the results of our research and there are frequent meetings and almost constant consultation. I do not think that the setting up of a research team which would have to be permanently in Washington or London would assist the work. A good deal of the work of our scientists is done here and their results shared, and vice versa.

Mrs. Castle: Will the right hon. Gentleman approach President Kennedy and find out how the ideas of this eminent seismologist could at least be examined and tested? Surely we should leave no stone unturned in order to get a test ban?

The Prime Minister: All these matters are inquired into, but I think it is my

duty to co-ordinate the work of British scientists and not that of American scientists.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN FREE TRADE ASSOCIATION AND EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Ministers of the European Free Trade Association countries to meet him to discuss the European Free Trade Association countries' relation with the Common Market and to clarify the pledges made to the European Free Trade Association and to strengthen Great Britain's position in negotiations with the Six.

The Prime Minister: I do not think this is necessary. We are in close and continuous touch with our European Free Trade Association partners. A Ministerial meeting was held in Oslo on 22nd October, when all members reaffirmed their adherence to the London communiqué of June, 1961.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great concern now being expressed that our pledges to our partners in the Association are being devalued to a mere consultation? Surely they go further than that. Does the Prime Minister now accept that it would be impossible for Britain to go into the Common Market till the broad position of our partners, including Sweden, is in fact clearly established?

The Prime Minister: It is a question of whether there should be a further meeting. There was a Ministerial meeting only a few weeks ago. There is almost daily consultation, and the position is absolutely clear, and I do not think it would add anything if I tried to change the words of the agreed communiqué.

Mr. Gaitskell: If it is absolutely clear, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would explain to the House whether he understands the pledge that we have given to the other E.F.T.A. countries to mean that we shall not sign, or, indeed, initial, an agreement covering our entry into the E.E.C. unless and until the other members of E.F.T.A. have had their interests considered and their interests are properly safeguarded.

The Prime Minister: That is perhaps a broad interpretation of the facts, but I do not think I can add to—nor, indeed, do I think it would be right to detract from or to add to—the words of the agreed communiqué only a few weeks ago.

Mr. Gaitskell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is precisely the lack of clarity in the position which concerns some of us? The question is whether we are going to sign the Treaty of Rome—or, if he likes to take another question, is it that he is going to introduce legislation here, after signing the Treaty of Rome, before the E.F.T.A. countries' interests have been considered?

The Prime Minister: What I am asked to do is to alter the words of a communiqué, or to interpret it, and I am not prepared, without notice, to do that. This is absolutely clear. It is accepted by the Ministerial meeting. The question is whether we shall have another Ministerial meeting. No doubt there will be one. There was one only two or three weeks ago. There is no doubt on this matter whatsoever.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not perfectly obvious that there is considerable doubt, which the Prime Minister completely refuses to dispel? Is it not highly desirable that there should be another meeting of the E.F.T.A. countries in order to clear up the point about exactly how Her Majesty's Government interpret their pledge?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The doubt is created by the cloud of doubt which the right hon. Gentleman puts over the matter. All the E.F.T.A. countries were perfectly satisfied and are satisfied. They have informed me, and I know quite well, that they are satisfied. No doubt there will be another Ministerial meeting. Meanwhile, there are the daily consultations.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister what reports he has now received from his scientific advisers on methods of verifying nuclear tests by sealed instruments.

The Prime Minister: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the

so-called black box proposals put forward by three American and three Soviet scientists who attended the 1962 Pugwash Conference.
Although I am advised that these proposals have a number of limitations, any idea that may reduce the gap between the Soviet Union and the West deserves careful consideration. It may be that these sealed instruments would reduce the number of unidentified seismic events in the Soviet Union, but they would not in themselves dispose of the need for verification.

Mr. Mayhew: Is it not clear from what the Prime Minister has just said that if the Russians want a nuclear test agreement these black boxes can overcome some of their objections without in practice weakening the safeguards needed by the West? In these circumstances, is it not an important and urgent matter to look into the technical side of this black box proposal? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, answer the question as to what advice he has received from his scientists about it and what information he has received from the United States scientists about this idea?

The Prime Minister: I do not want to delay matters, but I could give a full account of the technical considerations. I will try to summarise it if the hon. Gentleman wishes. A very large number of instruments would be required to make any real impact on these problems. They would, of course, present certain problems in respect of servicing and replacing them. That might, in a sense, complicate rather than simplify the process of detection and identification, merely because of the large numbers of sealed instruments involved and the large number of people who would be required to deal with them. There is also the quite difficult problem which can perhaps properly be summed up by what is generally called in technical jargon the question of how to deal with the problem of "spoofing", which means interfering with the operation of the instruments. All these are important questions which are being studied urgently by the American and British scientists. As I have said, we are anxious to get on. However, I can say that, if this instrument can play a


rôle in bringing us any nearer to an agreement, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be only too anxious to make use of it.

Mr. Grimond: When the Prime Minister speaks of verification, does he mean that even if a satisfactory method of verifying nuclear tests by sealed instruments were found, in the view of Her Majesty's Government we should still have to have facilities for on-site inspection in the U.S.S.R.?

The Prime Minister: That is the present view, certainly.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether it is still Her Majesty's Government's policy, as stated by him in the House on 5th March, 1957, to make and test nuclear weapons in order that Great Britain should not be in a weaker position than the United States of America or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: The tests of nuclear weapons to which I was referring in 1957 enabled us to develop thermo-nuclear weapons and so to maintain our position relative to the two major nuclear powers. Our reasons for continuing to make and test nuclear weapons at the present time were fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence in the debate on 19th November.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does the Prime Minister recollect that on 5th March, 1957, he was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) whether he would not suspend tests pending the outcome of discussions then going on about a test ban treaty, and he replied:
No, Sir. I should have thought it common sense to put ourselves in the position that we have been working for so long to attain, that we should not be in a weaker position than those other two great Powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1957; Vol. 566, c. 181.]
How far does the Prime Minister think he has advanced towards achieving that improvement since 1957, and in what way does he think the coming test will contribute to its realisation?

The Prime Minister: We have maintained our relative position.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROTEUS SUPPLY SHIP, HOLY LOCH

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Prime Minister whether, under the dual control system, he was informed about the departure of the Proteus from the supply base in Holy Loch after the United States of America had imposed the blockade of Cuba; and whether he was informed about and agreed to its plan of operations as part of the general arrangement for consultation between the United States and British Governments.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with President Kennedy concerning the removal of the Proteus supply ship from British waters during the height of the Cuban crisis.

The Prime Minister: British naval authorities are informed whenever it is proposed that Proteus should enter or leave Holy Loch. They were also consulted about the area to which Proteus should proceed when she left Holy Loch on 23rd October.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not still the position of the United States that this country has no right of control or consultation over the actual firing of missiles from the high seas by Polaris submarines, and is that not part of the lack of consultation that was shown in the case of Cuba, and what does the Prime Minister propose to do to remedy the situation?

The Prime Minister: That is quite a different question. The Question was about the sailing of the Proteus, and, naturally, all the undertakings and arrangements agreed to were meticulously adhered to. The hon. Gentleman's other question is about the use of nuclear weapons whether from submarines or land-based American bombers, or by any other means. In that case there is the general understanding, as the House knows, which I had with President Eisenhower and have renewed with President Kennedy, that we would consult one another before there was any question of using nuclear weapons in any part of the world.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the documents relating to the Polaris and the sailing


of the Proteus are kept under careful lock and key in the office of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, and for security reasons would it not be better to transfer them to the police station at Dunoon?

The Prime Minister: I always watch with interest the way in which the hon. Member's mind works. His supplementary questions always seem to pursue the topic of the day.

Mr. Reynolds: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether it is to be general practice that at times of acute international tension—which we hope will not recur, but I ask this question in case it does happen—the Proteus will leave British waters? If so, is not this likely to reassure large numbers of people who feel that such a vessel would itself be the subject of nuclear attack?

The Prime Minister: I hope it will be general practice in periods of danger, which I hope will not recur, that the forces of the West will be fully prepared.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL AFFAIRS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Q.7 Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Secretary of State with responsibility exclusively for Colonial affairs.

The Prime Minister: No. Sir.

Mr. Healey: Without raising any question of the personal suitability of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)—we all hope that he will soon be restored to health and that we shall soon see him again in the House—might I ask the Prime Minister whether he would not agree that the exceptionally heavy burden of work in the spheres of Commonwealth affairs and colonial affairs is too much for any single Minister to carry at one time? Is he aware that very many people both inside and outside this House feel that some of the recent events relating to British Guiana, Kenya and Aden might have been avoided had there been a senior Minister exclusively responsible for colonial affairs able to deal with them?

The Prime Minister: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says

in the second part of his supplementary question. The responsibility is that of the Minister and the Government as a whole.
With regard to the main supplementary question, I think that for quite a long time there has been discussion about the desirability of amalgamating these two offices. There is a great deal to be said for it. I have not gone as far as that because at present we are operating by bringing them together at the top through the Minister, keeping the offices for the moment separate bat working much more closely together than perhaps they have been able to do in the past. When one considers that only in the last two years British Colonies with a combined population of 50 million have become independent, and now Jamaica, Trinidad and Uganda have become independent, with the result that what used to be in comparison an enormous responsibility has been reduced to one for about 17 million people, I think this tentative movement towards getting the two offices together is a good experiment. The close cooperation of the two Departments is already showing good results.

Mr. Healey: Although the number of Colonies has been drastically reduced in recent years, the complexity and difficulties of the remaining colonial problems are as great as any faced in the past. Does not the Prime Minister recall telling the House that his right hon. Friend would be unsuitable for accepting responsibility for Central Africa because he was identified with one particular communal interest in the area? Is not that also an argument against his being made responsible for areas where there are majorities of people of non-European race?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I thought that what we did in the case of Central Africa was a step which had the advantage of placing all these territories under a single Minister instead of under one or the other of two Departments. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State was given an office of his own to deal with it. This is a wider experiment in the direction in which I feel sure we have to move. I think that it is best to make a start, not by trying at this stage to combine the


two Departments, but by putting them under the responsibility of a single Minister. Great as my right hon. Friend's responsibilities are, they are not greater, for instance, than those of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is not part of the difficulty caused by the fact that the two Departments are not combined, which necessarily means an exceptionally heavy burden on the Secretary of State? Will the Prime Minister consider whether the time has not come—since he seems unlikely to separate the two again—when they should be properly integrated so that the civil servants can share the burden?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that steps to closer co-operation are being taken and we may at some point be able to take a further step. This seems the best way to start the experiment.

OFFICIAL REPORT (ALTERATION)

Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a matter of incorrect reporting in today's HANSARD, c. 1303, in the fourth paragraph. The hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) last night made certain charges against me concerning the performance of my duties as a Member of this House—or, rather, my failure to carry out those duties. But I find that in today's HANSARD the context of what he said has been altered so as to withdraw the charges. There has, in fact, been a complete alteration in the sense of what he said. I think that the charges ought to be withdrawn properly and not in this fashion.

Mr. Speaker: What I am concerned with is the accuracy of HANSARD. Because the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) came to see me, I have ascertained that the text has been altered. I regret that error, because it is an alteration that ought not to have been passed.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not making complaint about corrections, for I have used this procedure myself and I think that it is a very good one, but I understand that these serious allegations

against an hon. Member of lack of duty towards his constituency—incidentally, my hon. Friend is one of the most regular attenders at the House and was here until midnight on Tuesday—have been reported in the Press. Is it not appropriate that the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) should make a formal withdrawal of the specific statement he made attacking my hon. Friend in the exercise of his duty?

Mr. Speaker: What I am dealing with at the moment is the accuracy of HANSARD, which is my responsibility. I do not think that what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) says is a matter for me. I do not see the hon. Member for Market Harborough present at the moment. I ought to have said, when speaking to the House before, that, of course, I have directed that an erratum notice will appear in tomorrow's HANSARD.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that this is one for you. May I ask who altered the OFFICIAL REPORT? I have always understood that the practice of HANSARD is that no one can tamper with a report except the one who made it. Did anyone except the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) alter this report?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I am required to tell the House more than this at the moment. Our rule about corrections is on page 270 of Erskine May. They are permitted, in practice, if they do not alter substantially the meaning of anything that was said in the House. It is because it did alter the meaning that this correction should not have been passed.

Mr. Gaitskell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we really leave the matter like this? This is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and if the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) were here perhaps he would be prepared to withdraw the allegation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Was he told?"] I do not know.

Hon. Members: He should be here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition is saying. I would be obliged if hon. Members would allow me to do so.

Mr. Gaitskell: There seem to be two aspects to this matter. First, there is the question of the allegation itself, and, secondly, the fact that HANSARD was altered and is now to be corrected. Somebody must have done this. You, Mr. Speaker, quite properly said that you did not want to say more at the moment, but it is not satisfactory to leave the position like that. If a point of substance of this degree of importance has been altered, it should not have been altered and, therefore, it is surely right and proper that if an hon. Member were responsible he should apologise and possibly withdraw the original statement.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a matter for me. I am fairly loath to say any more because, although I endeavoured to get hold of the hon. Member for Market Harborough today, I was unable to do so; thus he has not had any information about the report I have received from HANSARD. In these circumstances, I do not think it right or fair for me to say more today.

Mr. Paget: Since this is an unsatisfactory way to leave the matter, Mr. Speaker, is it not the case that an alteration of HANSARD in a manner not allowed by the rules is a breach of Privilege?

Mr. Speaker: If that is raised as a complaint I will take 24 hours to consider it.

Mr. Hale: What is the position, Mr. Speaker, of a newspaper which, in good faith, reports an observation made under the protection of Privilege, when an action for libel is brought by the hon. Member concerned against it in respect of a publication which is not substantiated by the report of what took place?

Mr. Speaker: If and when my duty should require me to consider such a problem I shall do so with great intellectual pleasure.

Sir T. Moore: Would it be proper to ask if the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) warned my hon. Friend the Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr) that he intended to raise this subject today?

Mr. Speaker: It is no good asking me. I do not know.

Mr. Hoy: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire,

West (Mr. Loughlin) the House should know that the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Farr), having made this charge, did not even do the courtesy to the House of hearing the winding-up speeches yesterday, when he could have had an opportunity of withdrawing.

Mr. Speaker: There is no possible ground for raising a matter like that at this time.

Mr. Loughlin: I would like to make it clear to the House, Sir, that I raised this question with the hon. Member for Market Harborough last night, and that I have been considering it today, as you know. When I decided to ask you for permission to raise it on a point of order, I was unable to get in touch with the hon. Member. I must point out that after today there would have been no opportunity for me to raise this matter in the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Iain Macleod): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 26TH NOVEMBER—Supply [1st Allotted Day]:
Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when debate will arise on an Opposition Amendment relating to National Insurance etc., Benefits.
Consideration of the Motion on the procedure authorising new routes for trolley buses.
TUESDAY, 27TH NOVEMBER—Debate on Public Investment, which will arise on a Government Motion to take note of the White Paper (Command No. 1849).
WEDNESDAY, 28TH NOVEMBER—Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
THURSDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER—A debate on the Report and Accounts of the British Transport Commission for 1961.
FRIDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 3RD DECEMBER—The proposed business will be: Debate on the


Motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition relating to Central Africa.

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House when the Second Reading of the London Government Bill is likely to take place, and whether he will provide two days for that debate? Secondly, on behalf of a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, may I ask him whether he can find time before Christmas for a debate on the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty?

Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill has been published only this morning. I can confirm that there will be a two-day debate on Second Reading, but without tying myself to a particular date. There might he more than the usual interval between publication and Second Reading, because this is a complicated business. I can make firm the sympathetic response which I made last week to a request for a debate on the Japanese Treaty, and say that I hope to find time for discussion on that matter before Christmas.

Mr. Wade: The right hon. Gentleman has stated that there might be a debate on the Prerogative Instrument introducing increased pensions for those who served in the Armed Forces and for their widows. When will that debate take place and what form will it take?

Mr. Macleod: According to the precedents, there have not been such debates on similar occasions in the past. Also in accordance with precedent, the Warrant is not signed until the Royal Assent is given to the Pensions (Increase) Bill. What I have suggested is that tomorrow's debate might provide at least some opportunities for some of these matters to be raised and in the light of that we can subsequently consider the position.

Mr. Tiley: May I repeat the repeated request of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) not only that we should have a debate on the Japanese Treaty, but that we should have it quickly? Is he aware that the delay in discussing it is doing harm to the Government and to our trade in the West Riding?

Mr. Macleod: I have undertaken to find time as soon as I can. It cannot

be for a little while, but it will be before Christmas. As the hon. Member knows, ratification is some months away.

Mr. Fletcher: When will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Police, which contained a number of important recommendations requiring urgent consideration?

Mr. Macleod: Consideration has been given to that matter, but I cannot undertake to find Government time for such a discussion.

Dame Irene Ward: Can my right hon. Friend say who is to reply to Tuesday's debate on public investment, and whether we shall be given details about how this additional money which is to come from the Government in public investment is to be spent in various areas? Will whoever replies be able to tell us how much we are to get in the North-East for our various priorities?

Mr. Macleod: The main Government speaker will be my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and I am sure that he will take note of the points which my hon. Friend has made and will reply to them as fully as he can.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman include in next week's business an arrangement to enable the Prime Minister to reply to Questions which are on the Order Paper today, which now have been delayed for ten days, and which relate to the Vassall Tribunal—Questions Nos. Q9, Q10 and Q12—because otherwise, with the way things are going, the Tribunal may have completed its investigation before those Questions are answered?

Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend will take note of what has been said, but it would not be appropriate for me, when dealing with next week's business, to reply to that.

Mr. Hirst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply to the question of the Leader of the Opposition about a debate on the Anglo-Japanese Commercial Treaty is less definite than what he said last week, and that this matter is causing concern? Is he not aware that there is great concern that there was not a debate before signature and that the industry is greatly alarmed at the way


it is being put off week by week? Is he not aware that, if confidence is to remain, a debate must take place much earlier than he suggests?

Mr. Macleod: If my hon. Friend wi11 study HANSARD, he will see that the commitment which I have given this week is firmer than that which I gave last week. Last week I said that I was sympathetic towards the request and hoped to find time, but today I have given an absolutely firm indication that we will find time before Christmas. I will take note of what my hon. Friend says about the urgency of this matter.

Mr. Rhodes: What is the significance of the time of 21 days for which the Treaty has to lie on the Table? Why is the right hon. Gentleman delaying the debate until after that period of 21 days?

Mr. Macleod: The debate is not affected by that. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a convention that treaties of this sort should lie on the Table for 21 days. In certain extremely rare circumstances, it may be possible, if objection is taken, to debate them. However, the key date is not that, but the date of ratification, which is some months away.

Mr. Short: Will the Leader of the House tell us the result of his discussion, which he mentioned last week, with the Minister of Transport about the possibility of a debate on a Motion calling for a suspension of the closing of railway workshops in the North-East so long as there is unemployment in that area?

[That this House regrets the British Transport Commission's decision to close down railway workshops and branch lines in the Northern Region of England, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission to withdraw this decision until the Government have carried out a comprehensive survey of the economic, social and industrial consequences of such action in the region.]

Mr. Macleod: I drew my right hon. Friend's attention to it. These matters would be in order on the business which I have announced for next Thursday, and I suspect that that is why the Opposition have chosen this subject.

Mr. E. Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in spite of his suggestion that Service pensions might be discussed tomorrow, the debate tomorrow will provide inadequate time for a very important subject on which many hon. Members feel strongly? Could we not at least have a full half-day, if not a full day, to discuss this very important matter?

Mr. Macleod: I will make two points on that, both of which, in a different context, I have made before. There have been discussions on Christmas Adjournments, and so on, but there has not been a separate discussion of this aspect when there have been previous pension increases. Secondly, I have said that we should see what opportunities tomorrow provides, and then study the position.

Mr. Jay: Is it quite clear that if the House does not debate the Japanese Treaty within 21 days of the laying of the Treaty, it is possible, if the House wishes, to take a vote on it when it is debated?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, Sir. I understand that that is the position.

Mr. F. Harris: Is it intended to have a debate soon on Kenya? Are we to have an explanation of the dismissal of the Governor of Kenya?

Mr. Macleod: My right hon. Friend will study that, but it does not arise out of next week's business.

Mr. Reynolds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even two days on the London Government Bill will permit only about 24 Members to speak, although there are 100 Members whose constituencies are directly affected and at least 50 others whose constituencies are indirectly affected? Is he further aware that as matters stand the maximum size of a Standing Committee is 50 Members—presuming that the Bill is sent to a Standing Committee—whereas similar legislation for Scotland or Wales would be sent to a Committee consisting of all the Members from Scotland or from the Principality? Has he seen the Motion I have put down to amend Standing Orders so as to provide for the setting-up of a Greater London Standing Committee, at least to discuss this Bill? Could we have time to discuss such a Motion?

[That this House believes that Standing Order No. 58 (Nomination of Standing Committees) should be amended so that, for the consideration of all Public Bills relating exclusively to the counties of London, Middlesex, Essex, Hertford, Surrey and Kent, the Committee shall be so constituted as to comprise all Members sitting for constituencies in those counties.]

Mr. Macleod: I have studied the Motion. I do not think that it is practical, but in due course no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to develop his argument on Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Box: Can my right hon. Friend say when he will have an opportunity of discussing the Bill to deal with the protection of investors, which was sponsored by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Macleod: I hope that we will be able to find time for the Second Reading of that Bill before Christmas.

Mr. Mayhew: May I ask the Leader of the House when we will have a debate on the Royal Commission on the Press, so that we know what is the Government's attitude to it? Will the Leader of the House also say when we can expect the White Paper on the future of television? What is holding it up?

Mr. Macleod: The Report of the Royal Commission on the Press was published on 19th September, and I have no information to give to the House beyond that.
I hope that we shall be able to publish the White Paper and the Bill before the Christmas Recess—in about a fortnight, perhaps.

Mr. Hirst: Arising out of the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes), does not my right hon. Friend realise that a great deal of the Anglo-Japanese Treaty is a matter of dispute, to use his own phrase, on both sides of the House? In those circumstances would not he both respect and honour the traditions of the House?

Mr. Macleod: I am not quite clear what my hon. Friend means. It is extremely rare to have a debate within the 21 days which have been referred to,

and I have given a firm undertaking that the House will have an opportunity of discussing this matter before we rise for Christmas.

Mr. Hirst: In view of the misunderstanding, perhaps I might assist my right hon. Friend. He said that where there was a dispute in relation to a treaty it was a tradition of the House to lay it on the Table for 21 days so that a debate could take place to inform the Government. This is a matter of very large dispute, and the Government ought to be informed.

Mr. Macleod: Without continuing that point, I think that if my hon. Friend reads in HANSARD what I said, he will see that that is not what I said.

Mrs. Castle: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind the desire, at any rate of hon. Members on this side of the House, for an early debate on the proposals for improving the accommodation of the House? Can he say when that debate will be held?

Mr. Macleod: No, I cannot give any indication. I think that there was a request yesterday that the House would like to discuss this at some time, and I responded to that, but there are a considerable number of subjects to he discussed and I do not think that we can give this particular one very high priority.

Mr. G. M. Thomson: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a week ago, on business questions, I asked him about the Government's failure to make a statement on the breakdown of the British Guiana Constitutional Conference, and he then promised to raise this matter with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Is he aware that no such statement has been made? Will he now give an assurance that a statement will definitely be made during the coming week?

Mr. Macleod: I carried out my undertaking and discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend. The position is that the White Paper has been laid, the parties concerned have adjourned for private discussion, and it is not the view of my right hon. Friend that a statement from him at this stage would be helpful.

Mr. C. Pannell: Following the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), that he is not prepared to give high priority to discuss accommodation, is he aware that the Minister of Public Building and Works has already given one answer at variance with that? Ought not the House to have some control over the Ministry of Public Building and Works? This is a job for the Legislature, in which the Executive should be told what we want. Is it not rather impertinent when Government business completely crowds out the work of the Legislature?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman has been listening during the last 20 minutes or so to at least a dozen or more suggestions on what we ought to find time to discuss. All those are regarded by those who put them forward, and quite rightly, as of the highest importance. The hon. Gentleman knows that this particular proposal is scarcely as urgent as some of those which have been put to me today.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the Minister find time to discuss the Motion in my name and the names of others, relating to the procedure of the House of Commons which enables a Private Member's Bill to be defeated by another private Member simply saying, "I object", without having read the Bill?
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is of particular importance in view of the number of private Members, of whom I am not one, who are bringing forward Private Members' Bills at the moment? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I shall bring in a Private Member's Bill later?

[That this House takes note of the power which at present enables one honourable Member to frustrate or postpone or defeat another Private Member's Bill by simply indicating on Second Reading his objection without giving reasons and without having read the Bill, and would welcome the reference of this matter to a Select Committee on Procedure for their consideration.]

Mr. Macleod: I have a collection of about ten different matters which, in one way or another, it has been suggested might be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. This is one,

and in due course I would ask the Committee, after it has disposed of a matter presently before it, to consider the order of its priorities.

Sir P. Agnew: With further reference to the accommodation scheme, will my right hon. Friend say to which Minister further Questions about its details should be put?

Mr. Macleod: I think that in most cases they should be put down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works.

Mr. Marsh: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of hon. Members who would like, as a matter of urgency, to debate the implications of the case in the High Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Scarman, when a Member of another place successfully pleaded privilege arising out of a thirteenth century peerage? Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is a matter of extreme importance that we should remedy a situation which apparently means that there is one law for a small group of Conservative peers and another for the rest of the population?

Mr. Macleod: In any case, not next week.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (MINISTERIAL MEETINGS)

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the recent ministerial meetings in the negotiations with the three European Communities. I hope that it will also be for the convenience of the House if I publish a more detailed account of these meetings as a White Paper later this afternoon.
At the ministerial meeting with the European Atomic Energy Community in Brussels on 14th November, the Chairman, on behalf of the Six member Governments, and the President of the Commission made replies to my opening statement of 3rd July. The text of these replies were later published by the Community, and English translations will shortly be placed in the Vote Office.
Discussions between officials began yesterday with an examination of the


Euratom Treaty, chapter by chapter. The next meeting of Ministers will be arranged through the deputies.
The ministerial meeting with the members of the European Economic Community was held in Brussels on 15th, 16th and 17th November. Agreement was reached on alternative arrangements for those Commonwealth countries which decline the offer of Association under Part IV of the Treaty of Rome. First, the opportunity to associate with the Community would remain open. Secondly, the enlarged Community would declare its readiness to negotiate commercial agreements with any of these countries wishing to do so. Thirdly, there would be a very gradual application of the Common External Tariff to all the exports of these countries. Fourthly, the Common External Tariff on tropical hardwoods, which are of major interest to Ghana and Nigeria, should be reduced from 10 per cent. to nil. Fifthly, it would be the policy of the enlarged Community to work towards commodity stabilisation agreements where practicable in the commodities produced by these countries.
It was agreed that an offer of association should be made for Aden with the addition of a protocol dealing with the export of petroleum products from Aden to the Community. There was a full discussion of the problems affecting Malta and the High Commission Territories. Ministers will consider solutions to these at a future meeting.
We discussed processed agricultural products from Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the first time. I was able to agree with the Community that its offer of a very gradual application of the Common External Tariff would be an adequate arrangement for some of the smaller items. I maintained our proposals for tariff reductions and duty quotas on others. Ministers will revert to this subject later.
Ministers also discussed for the first time the possible arrangements for mutton and lamb. It was agreed that the proposals of the Community for the application of the Common External Tariff by stages combined with the possibility of suspenson of the duty under Article 25 (3) of the Treaty of Rome should be studied further.
The Ministers of the Community stated that they were not in a position to

discuss the agricultural finance regulation with us. A brief discussion did take place on our request for nil duties on newsprint and aluminium.
It was arranged that the next ministerial meeting will take place from 10th to 12th December, followed by a meeting from 19th to 21st December.
In Luxembourg, on 19th November, negotiations were continued with the European Coal and Steel Community. Ministers noted the interim report of their officials, who had not been able to conclude their examination of possible incompatibilities between arrangements in the United Kingdom for the coal and steel industries and the Treaty of Paris. The officials will continue their work on these subjects, together with two additional ones, a study of sea transport from the point of view of the pricing rules of the Treaty, and an examination of the level of the external tariffs on steel.
The next ministerial meeting will be on 15th January.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of my past criticisms of the right hon. Gentlman, may I now congratulate him on his triumph in getting the abolition and remission of external tariffs on canned kangaroo meat and tinned rabbit?
As to the other part of his statement—first, in the matter of the negotiations with the Coal and Steel Community, will he say whether he is satisfied that those with whom he is negotiating are prepared to accept the present structure and policies both of the National Coal Board and the Steel Board, set up by the present Government?
Secondly, in view of the new deadlock which has arisen about the financing of import levies and the ultimate use of those finances, has he by this time represented to the Six the utter impossibility of solving problems of low-priced imports of Commonwealth produce and adequate prices for British farmers so long as they insist on having a single price system? Is he pressing for the two-price system that we have had for the last fifteen years?
Thirdly, in view of the strong attack that is being made both by the sub-committee of G.A.T.T. and by the United States Secretary for Agriculture on the whole agricultural policy and establishment of the Six, will he tell the House


whether he still accepts the Common Market agricultural policy in the future as a basis for negotiations, or whether he will now use these attacks on it to get some fresh thinking done on agricultural policy?

Mr. Heath: On the first point raised by the right hon. Member, the trade in these three items is worth more than 6 million dollars to Australia in particular, and also to Canada In two cases, tariffs of 19 per cent. would be abolished and in the other case the tariff is 8 per cent. It was of interest to these Commonwealth countries and, therefore, we accepted that arrangement. This is only a very small part of the whole programme of processed foodstuffs.
As for the negotiations with the Coal and Steel Community, the examination of possible incompatibilities between the coal and steel industries of this country and the Comumnity's organisations is not yet concluded. We have accepted that at the moment there are incompatibilities between our own arrangements for steel, and the Treaty of Paris—in particular, with regard to the pricing system and also the control of investments. As for the question of the Coal Board, discussion of that matter continues.
We have not urged that there should be a two-tier system in agriculture to deal with the question between the United Kingdom and the Economic Community.
As for the right hon. Member's last point, and the speech made by the American Secretary for Agriculture at O.E.C.D., when we were discussing this at the end of July and urging upon the Community that arrangements must be made for imports from the food-producing countries into the Community, what we were doing was affecting not only Commonwealth countries but all the supplying countries in the world. We made our position absolutely plain, and that remains our position.
But it also emerges that with the American trade legislation there is to be an opportunity of negotiating about these problems. The difficulties affect Europe and the United States together, and this only emphasises the need to deal with these matters by some world commodity arrangements if they can be produced.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear hon. Members opposite cheering, because that is part of the Brussels arrangement.

Mr. H. Wilson: We have always said that we want to see long-term commodity arrangements, but does or does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with the strong criticisms made by the United States Secretary for Agriculture, especially in relation to a variable import levy, the level of internal prices and the general system of autarchy?
Secondly, does he or does he not accept the fact that the whole agricultural set-up of the Six is totally incompatible with the letter and spirit of G.A.T.T., as has been said by the G.A.T.T. sub-committee this week?

Mr. Heath: These matters have been examined in G.A.T.T., as the right hon. Member knows, by the Second Committee of G.A.T.T., which is the proper forum for discussing them. The question whether Europe will or will not IN autarchic in its agricultural production will depend on the price levels fixed and not on the machinery used for governing imports into the Community. That is why we place so much emphasis on the price level fixed for these agricultural commodities in the enlarged Community—including ourselves.

Mr. Grimond: As the success of our application to join the Common Market depends upon parallel success for the other E.F.T.A. countries, can the Lord Privy Seal tell us whether conversations are going on between these countries and the Six and, if so, between which E.F.T.A. countries and the Six? Has he anything to tell us about these negotiations and, if they are suspended meanwhile, when they will be resumed?

Mr. Heath: The position of the E.F.T.A. countries is that Denmark entered into negotiations for full membership at the same time as ourselves. Their negotiations are comparatively far advanced and about ten days ago, I think, they had their latest Ministerial meeting with the Community. The Norwegian Government have also applied for full membership. They have made their original presentation, and again, ten days ago, on the same day as the Danish Government, discussed the negotiations with the Community.
As for the three neutral countries—Austria, Sweden and Switzerland—each has made application for association under Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome and each has made its original presentation. The Portuguese Government have also made application to enter into arrangements with the Community under Article 238, but have not yet made their presentation.

Dame Irene Ward: In connection with the discussions on sea transport that my right hon. Friend is having, can he say whether our shipping interests are being put fully into the picture before any negotiations or discussions are opened on this very important matter?

Mr. Heath: Yes, we are in the closest consultation with all the interests involved in the coal and steel negotiations.

Mr. Oram: The Lord Privy Seal has confirmed the report that it has been agreed that there is incompatibility between the Treaty of Paris and the 1953 Iron and Steel Act, in respect of powers of control over investment and, I understand, the fixing of maximum prices. Can he assure the House that all that has been agreed so far is that these things are incompatible, and that he has not yet surrendered this country's powers in these matters?

Mr. Heath: There can be no surrender of this country's powers until the Act is altered, and that would mean after the approval of Parliament, at the conclusion of any negotiations. We have accepted that if we were to enter the Coal and Steel Community alterations in the Act would be necessary to deal with these two items.

Sir C. Osborne: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the patience and courage with which he has defended British and Commonwealth interests in Brussels. Three times he said that there would be a gradual application of external tariffs. Can he say how many years that will cover?

Mr. Heath: Yes, from the time of accession to 1970 there will be five stages. The first, on accession, of 15 per cent.; the second, on 1st July, 1965, of 15 per cent.; the third, on 1st January, 1967, of 20 per cent.; the fourth, on 1st July, 1969, of 20 per cent.; and the last of 30 per cent., in 1970.

Mr. Turton: Can my right hon. Friend say what was the attitude of the Community to our request that Australian canned fruit should enter duty-free?

Mr. Heath: On the points of fruits, both canned and dried, and the remaining processed foodstuffs, we have not yet reached agreement.

Mr. Healey: On the question of processed foodstuffs, has not the right hon. Gentleman agreed that there will be a preference against the Commonwealth by 1970 in respect of 50 out of the 75 items concerned? Can he assure the House that on the most important question of dried fruit, canned fruit and canned salmon, he will insist that in one way or another the Common Market countries will provide Commonwealth countries overseas with outlets equal to those they now possess in Britain—bearing in mind the fact that some of these products are vital to communities of war veterans who have served this country—as well as their own country—well in the past?

Mr. Heath: We fully realise the importance of these items to the countries concerned, and we have made this plain in the negotiations. As I said in my statement, and as is explained in more detail in the White Paper, we have maintained our position not only over these, but also on the other important items.
As for the gradual décalage, the gradual application of the common tariff, that means that when we go into the Community, Commonwealth preference will disappear as far as Europe is concerned but will be maintained until 1970 against third countries.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are some of us who while in no way abating our view that it would be a great misfortune both for Europe and for this country if we failed to enter the E.E.C., and while also not minimising the concessions which are from time to time obtained, nevertheless feel that the words of Mr. Orville Freeman might act as a useful corrective to the spirit of Llandudno and that we shall think none the less of him if he produces a good agreement in January or February rather than in December?

Mr. Heath: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the remarks which he has made. I do not think that there is any difference between our desire in these negotiations and those of the American Secretary for Agriculture to ensure that there is room in the enlarged Community for these foodstuffs. That was the purpose of our long negotiations at the end of July and the beginning of August and that remains our purpose and would be our policy in the Community.

Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend referred to aluminium and newsprint. Would he confirm whether he is optimistic that major concessions will be made on these two commodities?

Mr. Heath: I do not think that my hon. Friend will expect me to go into the details of these rather complicated negotiations about aluminium and newsprint until we are rather further advanced. We have asked the Community to be more specific about their proposals in this respect and we are now awaiting their reply.

Mr. Gaitskell: While I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy in not making too long a statement and in providing part of the information in the White Paper, may I ask whether he is aware that it is not satisfactory to hon. Members simply to have this opportunity, perhaps in a quarter of an hour or so, of putting questions on such an enormous range of negotiations as those covered by his statement? Will he consult the Leader of the House to see whether before Christmas, possibly after the next round of negotiations, we may have a further debate?
There are a great many questions which I personally should like to put, but I will restrict myself, because of the lack of time, to only two or three. As far as Mr. Orville Freeman is concerned, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what we on this side of the House are urging him to do, in the light of Mr. Orville Freeman's very severe criticism of the variable levy and his support for what the right hon. Gentleman originally proposed but then abandoned in respect of Commonwealth agricultural products, is to reopen those questions?
If the right hon. Gentleman is puzzled by this, may I remind him of the insistence on maximum variable levies and

the assurance that exporters would retain a percentage share of the market? This is the sort of thing I have in mind. In the light of all this, is he aware that what we want him to do, supported by Mr. Orville Freeman, is to go back and to say that we must reopen these questions which appeared to be settled in August? That is my first question.
The second is a specific question on the countries which do not want A.O.T. status. Is it not the case that the opportunity to associate with the Community being continued is something which, in any case, is involved in the convention between the Six and the A.O.T. countries which have already joined and, therefore, that all that has happened is that this is now extended, as it was bound to be, to our Commonwealth members in the same position?
Thirdly, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the negotiations on commercial agreements which are to take place with those countries may go as far as to put them in no worse position as far as tariffs are concerned than the A.O.T. countries themselves? Has there been a discussion about this? Is it the case, as reported, for instance, that the right hon. Gentleman has agreed that they could not be put in such a favourable position? May I ask him whether it is not the case that the zero tariff on tropical hardwoods was proposed at G.A.T.T. two years ago and then rejected by Her Majesty's Government?
May I also ask him two other questions, one about mutton and lamb, which is very important. Is it permissible for Her Majesty's Government to continue deficiency payments in respect of these two commodities? Otherwise, the 20 per cent. tariff will obviously not be adequate for the British farmer. Finally, is he aware that Dr. Luns, in a statement in New York yesterday, said that there was an absolute deadline on these talks which lies in the British elections? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this is very different from his assurance to us that there was no deadline. Will he therefore either contradict what Dr. Luns said, or admit that he himself was wrong?

Mr. Heath: I think that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the difficulties of reporting on negotiations of this size and this complexity. We negotiated from the


Wednesday of last week until Monday with the three Communities, as I have described. On this occasion I adopted what seemed to me to be the most convenient form for the House by making a comparatively short statement and setting out the detail in the White Paper. I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the right hon. Gentleman's request, but there are also two days a week in which Foreign Office Questions are down, and we reach a very large number of them. We can no doubt deal with many of the points which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to raise between now and the next Ministerial meeting.
Dealing, first, with his comment on agricultural policy, I explained to the House in the debate after our resumption following the Summer Recess the problem of making quantitative arrangements for a common agricultural policy which did not contain any quantitative element. When Mr. Orville Freeman asks that the Community should guarantee a percentage or the same percentage of trade to individual countries, he is, in fact, asking that the pattern of trade should be frozen.

Mr. Gaitskell: That was involved in the right hon. Gentleman's own proposal on comparable outlets.

Mr. Heath: This has always been the problem in these negotiations in arranging for comparable outlets. We have described them in a way which we thought would not lead to the freezing of the pattern of trade. But if the American Secretary for Agriculture is asking for a percentage to be fixed in that way, he is asking for a freezing of the pattern of trade. It was for that reason that we adopted the alternative approach of deciding by the price level what the internal production would be and, therefore, what the room for imports would be. That is important just as much for the Commonwealth countries as for countries such as the United States.
When we come to the question of the alternative arrangements, the Community explained, in the same way as it was explained to the Ministers of the Commonwealth, the difficulty of making individual trading agreements which have the exact content of association, because association under Part IV of the

Treaty of Rome is based on a free trade area arrangement with the Community. It has been put forward in that form to G.A.T.T. and it has, therefore, been accepted that the commercial agreements to be negotiated cannot have the same content as association for those countries which are members.
Nor can they be in the same form as the arrangements so far negotiated for India and Pakistan, because the state of the economies of these countries is quite different from that of India and Pakistan. It therefore remains that the request of these countries, which they made at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting, to be allowed to negotiate their own commercial agreements is accepted in the form in which we have agreed it in Brussels.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about hardwood. At that time we did not accept it because of the particular Commonwealth interests here. It is agreed that, with our membership of the Community, the most advantageous thing for Ghana and Nigeria is to abolish this tariff. This gives them an outlet into the enlarged Community as a whole instead of maintaining the preference which they would have had in the United Kingdom alone. This means that they lose a preference here of 10 per cent., but they have an entry into the whole of Europe, and this they must balance out. It is second in importance, for Ghana's export trade, only to cocoa. As far as Nigeria is concerned, it is the sixth in importance, except for the items on which there was already no tariff.
There is no agricultural regulation for mutton and lamb and the Community does not foresee there being one by the possible time of entry for us into the Community. There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which makes it impossible to have a deficiency payment system, and an arrangement is changed if there is an agricultural regulation which changes that particular arrangement. If we became members we would have full rights in drafting the agricultural regulation.
Dr. Luns was speaking for himself. He would not claim to be speaking for the Community and he was not speaking for the British Government, but any Foreign Minister is able to form his own opinion about these matters. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition


often expresses opinions about the affairs of other countries. He is fully aware of the amount of time which exists before it is necessary for Her Majesty's Government to have a General Election.

Mr. Gaitskell: The right hon. Gentleman is, in fact, saying that there is no deadline and that Dr. Luns is wrong?

Mr. Heath: Mr. Heath indicated assent.

Mr. Gaitskell: I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much.
On the question of deficiency payments, is he quite sure that they are not included in the agricultural policy and not inhibited by the general prohibition on subsidies under the Treaty? I forget the exact number of the Article.

Mr. Heath: I have expressed our view on this matter.

Orders of the Day — AIR CORPORATIONS BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.22 p.m.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I do not want to detain the House for long this afternoon. I have not very much to add to what has already been said on this Measure, both on Second Reading and upstairs in Committee I am well aware that our business later this afternoon is to include a discussion on the affairs of Northern Ireland, which are of great consequence to my Department.
I do not think that we left many loose ends at the conclusion of the Committee stage. In fact, after looking through HANSARD, I can find only one point to which I wish to refer. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) asked whether any compensation payments made under Clause 5 of the Bill would be liable to Income Tax. I have looked into this point and I understand that under Section 37 of the Finance Act, 1960, they would be.
I think that the House feels that B.E.A. has a very good record, with profits ever seven years as evidence of its general health and stability and that it will overcome its temporary setbacks of last year and return to a period of making a profit. I am sure that the House will have seen with pleasure, as I did, the news that a Trident aeroplane flew from this country to Rome in an hour and twenty minutes yesterday, a very remarkable achievement.I think that there is no disposition on either side of the House to question the high standards of B.O.A.C., but there is considerable anxiety about its commercial organisation. On this, I do not want to say more, because I think we, must await the report which Mr. Corbett is to make to me.
I wish to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for many useful suggestions which have been made during


the course of our debates and for their co-operation, which has enabled the Bill to advance thus far so smoothly.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: My hon. Friends and I agree about the importance of this legislation and have no wish to hold up its progress. The right hon. Gentleman told us that this is a narrow Bill in the sense that it is purely a borrowing Measure. On Second Reading, we explored many facets of policy which emanated from borrowing powers. For my part, I have no wish—nor would you, Mr. Speaker, allow me—to traverse that kind of ground again.
I think it important that we should understand, especially with the new powers that the Minister is taking to make advances to the Corporations to finance losses on operating account, that the sums for which the right hon. Gentleman is asking in this respect are not necessarily amounts which we think the Corporations will lose in the next two years. I was very pleased to see that Lord Douglas made this point in the B.E.A. magazine.
Although B.E.A. will have the facility, when the right hon. Gentleman gets these powers, to borrow up to £10 million between now and March, 1964, Lord Douglas made it abundantly clear that the position of the Corporation is far more healthy than would appear to be the case if anyone imagined that it is to lose £10 million in the next two years.
It is important that that kind of thing should be said. Those of us who are to agree to these powers being given would be very apprehensive if we thought that between now and March, 1964, either B.O.A.C. or B.E.A. would incur maximum losses to the amounts we are granting. That should be made abundantly clear.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman also referred to the fact that although both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. had a bad year, in common with most of the great airlines of the world, they have, especially in the case of B.E.A., a fine record of profitability. Indeed, in the period 1954–55 to 1961–62 they made profits of £12,900,000, with a net profit of £8 million, including interest charges of nearly £3 million, leaving £4,300,000. One is pleased to see in what was something in the nature of an interim report

that Lord Douglas was making that he pointed out that in the current year—which is a year of great importance to all of us, because we want to see the graph rising after the disasters of 1961—he estimates that from April to September an overall profit of nearly £3 million was made.
All this is very heartening, but we know that the worst period in the year is now beginning and the six months from now is the period in which passenger traffic falls away steeply. We cannot expect that the recovery shown in the first six months will be maintained in the second six months. We wish the Corporations the very best of luck. It is heartening to see that in the first six months of the financial year they have been doing very well indeed.
In our discussions on the various borrowing Clauses of the Bill in Committee, we asked for information about the rate of interest at which the money is to be borrowed. The right hon. Gentleman was not able to tell us precisely although he intimated that borrowing had been at 4¼ per cent. and 4½ per cent. I do not know if he can enlarge on that. As he knows, we believe that the lower the interest rate at which the money is lent, the better results we shall get from the two Corporations.

Mr. Amery: I remind the hon. Member that I said that the Corporations were borrowing at the current Government rate. At present, it is, I think, 4¼ per cent. in the case of B.E.A. and 4½ per cent. for B.O.A.C. It varies, of course, as the rate goes up or down.

Mr. Lee: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I was making the case that the lower the interest rates in this business the better returns we can hope for from the investment which we—not only the House, but the nation itself—are making in the work of the two Corporation's. Within the Bill, I must not discuss the question of writing off dead capital, but I hope that the point which was made both on Second Reading and in Committee concerning it has not been lost sight of by the Minister.
I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman that a great deal will depend upon the inquiry which he is now conducting into the affairs of B.O.A.C. I have suggested that it might be better to


go far wider than the Minister has indicated, but he has not accepted that suggestion. We all hope, on both sides, that B.O.A.C. has now seen the worst of its problems and that the inquiry will show the directions in which constructive suggestions can be made to give the Corporation a better return in future years.
I am sure that all of us hope that the action we are now taking will assist the two Corporations in the great work which they have before them as the nation's flag carriers, so that we again see not only their share of the traffic increasing rapidly, but also a valuable return on the money which the nation is expending on these two great airlines.

4.32 p.m.

Sir David Robertson: I share the views expressed by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) about the excellent work which is done by the two Corporations. I have travelled for years by B.E.A. and with its predecessor, Imperial Airways, and on B.O.A.C., too. Their services are unequalled.
I am particularly concerned with the excellent service which is provided between the principal cities in England and the Highlands and I rise to raise an issue which is dealt with in Clause 1 of the Bill, which refers to deficits. Unhappily, a deficit has occurred in these Highland services and B.E.A. has stated that it will have to curtail them unless it gets a subsidy.
This year, the greatest increase recorded at any airfield in Britain was at the county town of Wick, in my constituency. The percentage increase in the month of August was 41 per cent. Orcadians, Shetlanders and Caithness people have taken to the air services to a much greater extent than people in many other parts of the country, because their other means of communication are not so good, and I am sure that the people of Ross-shire would do the same if they had an aerodrome.
The service is first class. I can sleep in my own bed in London, get a plane leaving London Airport at 8.30 a.m. for Edinburgh, Glasgow, or thereabouts, have a hearty breakfast and be licking my chops when we come down at Renfrew or Turnhouse, having travelled

and eaten at the same time. After waiting there, we go on to Aberdeen. After a halt there, I get into Wick at ten minutes past twelve, have lunch, do a good afternoon's work and come back on a plane leaving at 5.10, getting into London Airport in time to make a speech at the House if I succeed in catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
I cannot stress too strongly how efficient the service is; it is excellent. It is a great regret to me to think that a community which appreciates the services as much as we do in the Highlands is faced with a threat of curtailment.
I have seen the traffic increase. When I first became a Member for John o'Groats, we had the old Rapides, which could not pay even when they were full. The Corporation was nervous about doing so, but I pleaded with it to put on bigger planes. The Corporation did so and filled them, and then put on more of those planes. This horrible threat to curtail the services is something of which I must inform the House, because we must try to avoid it.
One factor that increases B.E.A.'s deficit in the Highlands is that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority runs a private service rivalling B.E.A. on three days a week between Manchester and Renfrew, Glasgow and Wick. On three days a week, this private service is operated by Silver City Airways. In my judgment and, what is more important, in the judgment of many of my constituents, it is wholly unnecessary. All my constituents have to travel by the Corporation's services and they feel that the same thing should be done by officials and relatives and friends of those employed by the Atomic Energy Authority.
The B.E.A. service is operated six days in the week. The aircraft leaves Manchester at 7.35 a.m.—I imagine that the passengers get breakfast on it—and arrives at Renfrew at 8.35. It leaves Renfrew at 9.5 and gets into Wick at 12.10. That is the same plane as I use, only I start from London and go up via Aberdeen to Edinburgh. It is the same connection. The aircraft returns at 5.40 in the afternoon, gets into Renfrew at 8.20, leaves at 8.50 and gets to Manchester Airport at 9.50 p.m.
What could be better than that for six days in the week, outward to the


North and back to the South? I say this with the greatest possible force to my right hon. Friend the Minister, because many of my constituents who complain about the private service are prominent citizens who use the regular services. It seems wrong to them and to me that another branch of Government service should resort to a private service, because the income from that three-days-a-week service might obviate any question of loss to B.E.A. and there would be no need for subsidy for that part of the North of Scotland.
There is bound always to be a subsidy for the Islands on the West Coast, where the population is so much smaller than on the mainland. Here, however, a Government Corporation runs a first-class service, which all the rest of the people have to use if they want to travel by air, but the Atomic Energy Authority, in its majesty, decides to run an air service of its own, operated by Silver City on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, which are the peak days of the week.
I appeal to the Minister to do something about this and to bring it to an end. I do not object in the slightest to the officials and their relatives from the Atomic Energy Authority travelling by air, but they should use the same services that I and everybody else use. The taxpayer cannot afford to meet losses which are quite unnecessary. The income from a full load going up from Manchester to Wick and return far three days in the week might make all the difference between a profit and a loss. It is all a question of turnover.
If the argument is put forward that there is not enough room, B.E.A. is well capable of meeting the demand. It has met it continuously in the past as the demand has grown. This private service seems to me to be wholly wrong and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the House, and particularly the Minister, will agree.
I should not like to think that, because another Minister is concerned in the matter, it is not the affair of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation. I say that it is his affair representing, as he does, the Members of the House and the public at large outside. I assure him that I will not be satisfied, nor will the people outside be

satisfied, if they think that this kind of thing goes on. It is no wonder that B.E.A. is losing in the North when foolish competition like this is allowed to come from public funds.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to emphasise the importance of what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson). We are perturbed at the future prospects of the air services in Scotland. We visualise the possibility of the rail and air services being closed down, so that it will be difficult to travel in that area by any reasonable form of transport and conditions will be as derelict as in the period of 1745. People may have to walk.
I wish to stress the importance of this matter to the Minister, who has a responsibility for aviation in that part of the world. The traffic could be developed were there an efficient or even a half efficient air service. I am quite sure that what has been said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will be endorsed by everyone who is concerned about the future of this remote area. We wish to help the Minister to remedy the position in which B.O.A.C. is at present. We should like to travel from Prestwick by B.O.A.C. planes. But it is impossible to hoard some of these planes because of the ridiculous arrangements which the Customs authorities have instituted at Prestwick.
I know that there are a large number of people who would travel from the west of Scotland by B.O.A.C. planes and thus help to solve the financial problems associated at present with air traffic from that part. There are trans-Atlantic planes from Canada and New York landing at Prestwick at frequent intervals. But it is difficult to board them, especially the planes which come at the most important periods. I consider that there should be some arrangement with the Treasury to make it possible to extend the present limited Customs arrangements and enable people to make use of these planes. In this matter I speak for hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent constituencies in south-west Scotland. Such an arrangement will help to popularise what I believe would prove a developing traffic.


I am sure that the Minister wishes to be helpful to Scotland and this suggestion would be supported by all hon. Members.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Before the House parts with the Bill I wish to say a word on behalf of the ordinary "man-on-the-ground"—the taxpayers and the residents who has to live near our airports. In such debates as this speeches are made by the experts and technicians and others who are vitally interested in the aviation industry, but infrequently do we hear what the ordinary man thinks.
The ordinary man considers that the air traveller is a highly subsidised person. The airlines make losses. The collective losses last year amounted to £50 million, to which sum our airlines contributed about £15 million.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: I think that the hon. Member must have misunderstood the position. B.E.A. has made a profit for seven years, from 1954. The Corporation made a loss only last year.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: That is what I said. Of the losses made by air corporations last year our Corporations contributed over £15 million.
Airports in other parts of the world are subsidised. Even London, Gatwick and Prestwick which we try to make a commercial proposition made a loss last year of over £1 million. Radar services and landing facilities, and so on, for foreign airports are provided by their Governments. The research and development which goes into machines and engines is provided by many Governments on a military budget rather than from straightforward commercial operations. Therefore, in the view of the ordinary man, the air traveller should move through the air with modesty and acknowledge with gratitude the help and money provided for his means of transport by the poor "groundling". Instead, we see them moving amid more noise and clamour and with more bombast. Those of my constituents who live near London Airport feel strongly about this.
The increased loans which will be made available by the provisions in the

Bill mean to the ordinary person that larger and more powerful planes will become available, and they will be noisier. I hope that the Minister can tell us that that is not what is intended for the future. But there are proposals for a supersonic aeroplane capable of travelling at 1,500 miles an hour to be provided at a cost of £150 million. This may mean more booms and bangs over Twickenham. I think of all the old aircraft which have been scrapped—the Brabazon, the Princess flying boats, the V1000, and so on.
What advantage will be derived from having this great supersonic aircraft? Will it be scrapped in the future? The only advantage which I can see in having such an aircraft would be for businessmen who might be able to get from London to New York two hours quicker—if they are not frizzled to death when the aircraft re-enters the atmosphere at 1,500 miles an hour. This supersonic monster will have to take off from London Airport, as no doubt it will be owned by the B.O.A.C. We cannot move London Airport. We have already spent over £30 million on the Airport——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Member, but I hope that he will bear in mind that this is a Third Reading debate and we are dealing only with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I appreciate that.
The Bill will give the Corporations increased borrowing powers and no doubt some of the money borrowed will have to be spent on providing new aircraft. That means more traffic, and possibly noisier traffic, and, therefore, it will affect those people living near the airports May I ask a question of the Minister——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding between the hon. Gentleman and myself. It was the reference to London Airport that was perplexing to the Chair.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Well, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I think that you will agree that if, in future, the Corporations are to have larger and noisier aircraft, it will affect a great number of people. The Corporations will be able to buy


more aircraft. Everyone expects them to be busy and I am only endeavouring—I hope within the rules of order—to point out that, in addition to the industry and air travellers, the provisions in the Bill affect the ordinary man in the street and alarm some people.
Air travellers are a privileged class. From time to time I am an air traveller myself and I acknowledge that fact. The public want cheap travel to be provided by the Corporations. I do think that it matters whether air journeys are cut short by an hour or two. That is a marginal difference of which businessmen may take advantage. But the ordinary person wants cheap air travel. Surely that is something which the Corporations should provide in the future.
I therefore ask my right hon. Friend, and those responsible in the Corporations, to spare a thought for the little man on the ground and for the air travellers who desire cheap travel. They should remember the little man on the ground who pays for the power and glory of the great Corporations which he subsidises.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I have listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) about the disadvantages of supersonic aircraft. I agree with him that they have their disadvantages, but I should like to correct one thing he said. He said that on re-entering the atmosphere people could be frizzled up by the heat. Supersonic aircraft flying at Mach 2·2 will still be within the atmosphere. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know how to calculate the temperature rise caused by the forward speed of an aircraft he would be advised to remember that the formula (v/100)2 gives the rise in temperature in degrees Centigrade.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I do not intend to bandy formulae, but the supersonic aircraft would have to rise to a height of 70,000 ft.

Mr. Lubbock: In the case of the Mach 2·2 aircraft that would be about the right height, but at that height an aircraft is still within the atmosphere.
I do not want to make a lengthy speech on Third Reading, but I do want to refer

to what I think must have been a slight misunderstanding on the part of the Minister of something I said on Second Reading which is relevant to the Bill. I made the proposal that the capital of the Corporations should not be in the form of a number of loans at varying rates of interest. In the case of the B.O.A.C. there are about 25 different loans at interest rates varying between 2½ per cent. and 6⅝ per cent. I was proposing that the capital structure of the Corporations should be reorganised so that all those loans were redeemed and replaced by ordinary shares and that the Corporations should pay dividends on their ordinary capital according to the profits they make so that in a year where they had poor results they would not have to pay anything out.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but none of this appears to me to be in the Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The increased borrowing powers provided for by the Bill are in the form of fixed interest capital. With great respect, I think that one must consider this factor, because there is some question whether we might, instead of having the increased capital in the form of a fixed interest loan, have it in the form of ordinary shares.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not think that that would be within the Bill. On Third Reading, we cannot put forward what we would like to see in the Bill. We are restricted to dealing purely with what is in the Bill.

Mr. Lubbock: I am most grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
Under the terms of the Bill we have the fixed interest capital. We are now appointing accountants to advise us on how the capital of the Corporations should be organised. That is one of the things Which they will have to consider. However, as I am out of order, I will leave that point.
The hon. Member far Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) said something about the internal services operated by B.E.A. He said that the Corporation operated two services to Scotland and elsewhere which were very comfortable and suitable for the routes on which they were operating. He said that various


facilities were provided on them. We must be more careful about the facilities provided by the Corporations on very short routes. This is one of the ways in which the Corporations are wasting money. There are expensive meals and champagne on services which take only 1¼ hours, or even less. There need not be elaborate services on the routes between London and Glasgow and London and Belfast.
One of the ways in which the Corporations have been wasting money is on this kind of provision. In these days everyone who travels by air should be treated as a V.I.P. There should not be these very vast differences in the type of services provided for different classes of traveller. It would be much better, particularly on internal services, if there were no differences in class.
I welcome the increased borrowing powers provided in the Bill and I hope that the two Corporations will in future be able to operate on a more profitable basis than they have done in the last year.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I wish to return for a minute or two to the point that has been raised in connection with the services in Scotland to the Western Isles. These are exceedingly important in 'the life of the Western Isles. Without them we could look forward to a continuing decline of population and probably the final decay of the communities there. These services lose money. It has been recommended to the Government that B.E.A should not be asked to bear the losses incurred as a result of running these services. In view of recent developments on the railways, we are entitled to ask some questions about these services.
If these services continue to lose money, if B.E.A. continues to lose money, will the same policy be adopted as that which is being followed on the railways, namely, that only those services which pay will be run? If that is done, the services to the Islands, particularly to the Western Isles, will come to an end. This would be a very shortsighted policy and a very uneconomic one, because the Government through other channels are spending fairly sub-

stantial sums of money on trying to strengthen the communities in these areas, on trying to build them up, on trying to give them a means of livelihood, make them viable, and enable the people to enjoy a sufficient degree of comfort and amenities so that they will wish to continue living in the areas.
If the Government are prepared to do that, they should be prepared, as a corollary, to take the steps necessary to provide proper services to them. As far as I know, B.E.A. is anxious to continue these services. In consultations we have had with B.E.A. the Corporation has always expressed a wish to continue these services and is very anxious to do so, because it recognises the social need of the area. If the Corporation is to be asked to bear the loss at a time when the services are losing money, there is a danger to these services.
The Minister appears to be under an obligation to tell us exactly what he intends to do about them. I should like him to accept the recommendation that the Government should bear the loss in respect of these communities. I cannot see that that would cause B.E.A. to engage in a great deal of wasteful expenditure running services which were quite unnecessary. B.E.A. knows what is required. It knows the most efficient way of meeting the requirements. The Corporation would do that. Therefore, I do not think that the Government would be asked to meet what might be considered to be an extravagant expenditure. This is a necessary expenditure not only for the services, but if the Government's policy in regard to these areas is to be carried out properly. Before we leave the Bill the Minister should tell us what he thinks about these services up the West Coast of Scotland to the Western Isles.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Amery: By leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to what has been said. May I try to correct what I thought was a slight misconception in the mind of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee)? I think that he is still a little under the impression that Mr. Corbett's Inquiry is of a very narrow character because Mr. Corbett is himself a distinguished accountant.

Mr. Lee: My suggestion was that instead of confining it to B.O.A.C. we


should look at the whole of the aircraft industry. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, although it is confined to B.O.A.C., it is a very wide inquiry indeed.

Mr. Amery: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made his point clear. I gathered from his previous remarks that he thought the scope of the inquiry into B.O.A.C. was too narrow, but it is, as I have explained before, on a very wide front embracing both the technical and the management side.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) stressed the importance of the Highland and Island services. I do not want to add to what I said on Second Reading on that, but if the hon. Members will look at what I said I think they will find that I went out of my way to stress the vital rôle of these services in the life of the Highlands and Islands and the great importance which the Government attach to them. There is no question of their being cut out. There is a proposal before us made by B.E.A. that we should meet the loss it incurs on them. As I have said in debate in the House and in reply to Questions, this is something that I am urgently considering. I cannot give an answer here and now on whether we shall accept the proposal or whether we shall have to find some other solution for it. There is the whole problem of the administration of the airports in the Highlands and Islands which is a related but a distinct problem.
My hon. Friend referred to the problems of the Atomic Energy Authority and its taking charter aeroplanes for certain purposes. This type of charter does not require a licence. This is a matter for the Atomic Energy Authority, and if my hon. Friend wants to pursue the matter further I would ask him to address any questions on it to my noble Friend the Minister of Science or his representative in this House.

Sir D. Robertson: I did that in the first place. I have never raised anything in this House in the twenty-three years that I have been here without the courtesy of a letter to the Minister concerned. I did that, and I got a thoroughly unsatisfactory answer, indicating to me that his powers were un-

limited and that this is how he was going to run it. I take an entirely contrary view. I am sorry that the Minister said that this was not his concern, because in answer to my question the other day he asked me to put down a specific Question. However, I have this opportunity now. I cannot see how the Minister of Aviation can dissociate himself from this. This is the Government. It is two different Departments of the Government, and one is cutting the throat of the other.

Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend will realise that the Atomic Energy Authority has considerable autonomy in these matters. It is entitled to charter flights if it regards this as necessary and desirable. I must admit that I have not received sufficient grounds to challenge the decision. But, as I have said, matters affecting it are not directly in my Departmental sphere, and that is why I suggested to my hon. Friend that if he wants to pursue the matter further the Departmental responsibility is with my noble Friend and his office.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) raised an interesting point about the possibility of overcoming Customs difficulties and making greater use for internal purposes of trans-Atlantic flights. I am not well briefed at the moment on this point, but it is one which on the strength of what the hon. Gentleman said I propose to examine carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) spoke about the serious problem of noise. It is one of which I am well aware and one which. I hope, will to some extent be diminished with the advent of the VC.10 aeroplane which, so far as I can see, looks likely to be slightly less noisy than the big jets have been hitherto. My hon. Friend also stressed the importance of cheap travel as against swift travel. One of the difficulties in this issue, which is canvassed from time to time, is that so far experience has shown that the operating economics of fast jets are superior—that is, they are cheaper than those of the older and slower aircraft. This is partly because the turn-round is much swifter, and if we had a supersonic aeroplane it could do the trans-Atlantic flight two or three times in the same day.

Mr. Hunter: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the new jet airliners make bigger losses on the aircraft equipment already owned by the Corporation?

Mr. Amery: I take the hon. Gentle man's point. I was simply saying that the operating economics of the swifter aircraft tend to be superior and cheaper. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, that is where we are in a certain dilemma. If we stick to the old aircraft when other lines are taking the modern ones we tend, of course, to lose traffic to our competitors. This is the dilemma. Once one airline embarks upon a superior new type of aeroplane it is very difficult for the others not to follow suit, and ail market research suggests that what passengers really want is swiftness and speed above all. They may be wrong. But that seems to be the way they operate. In many ways it was more comfortable travelling in the old-fashioned type of motor car from which one could get out with one's hat on, if one wore a hat, and get out frontwards instead of backwards. People do not want that sort of car any more and one has to cater for the travelling Public's taste.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I think my right hon. Friend would agree that experience shows that this cheap travel fills the aircraft whereas many of the jets are going half empty.

Mr. Amery: As my hon. Friend probably knows, B.O.A.C. has calculated that, but if it were to reduce its fares by 20 per cent. it would have to increase the passenger load by 25 per cent. to break even, so it is not very simple. This is where the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) may run into difficulty. With passenger loads as they are today, to convert them all to tourist class, that is to say to reduce the fares of what is now about a quarter of the ordinary aircraft load, would perhaps run one into even great financial loss under present conditions.

Mr. Lubbock: If the Minister really wanted to do this, would it not save a great deal in duplication of operating expenditure in terms of cabin staff and the separate facilities which at present have to be provided for first-class services which are operating in B.O.A.C. at much lower load factors than the tourist class?

Mr. Amery: I am advised that that is not the case. The hon. Gentleman made the point before in Second Reading, and I am advised that the gain to the Corporation outweighs whatever expense and additional overheads there may be. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the make up of the capital structure of the Corporation. This is no doubt a point that Mr. Corbett can consider. It has been made before. It would be difficult in present circumstances for B.O.A.C. to raise equity capital in the market, if that is what the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I think that this is a matter which can best be left to the accountant's inquiry.
I think that I have covered the main points that have been raised, and I do not want to delay the House beyond expressing my gratitude and the Government's for the ready co-operation which we have had from both sides of the House in receiving support for what is, after all a request for a very sizeable sum of money, although, I hope, as the hon. Member for Newton said, that not a great deal of it will have to be spent on financing a deficit. I look forward to seeing the greater part of the expenditure used on constructive re-equipment of the Corporations with more modern aircraft to put them in an increasingly strong and competitive position in the airline markets of the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — TOWYN TREWAN COMMON BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

5.9 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdale): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is not often that the Air Ministry has occasion to come to the House for legislation, but I am glad to say that this is a comparatively simple Bill, concerned with the extension of an aerodrome, and I therefore trust that the House will cooperate with me and live up to a motto famous in the Royal Air Force, "With speed to the mark."
The airfield at Valley, in Anglesey, is equipped with all the facilities for training


in the use of modern weapons which are now in service with the latest types of air-craft, but the main runway must be extended before the airfield can be used in complete safety by those aircraft. The airfield was built during the 1939–45 war, largely on common land, which was then under requisition. After the war, it was decided to keep the airfield on a long-term basis, and common and public rights over that part of the common that had been enclosed were extinguished by the Towyn Trewan Common Act, 1950. The runway extension now needed falls partly on land of which the common and public rights were extinguished in 1950 and partly on land still subject to these rights. This Bill is necessary to enable the extension of the runway to be completed.
In preparing to extinguish these rights, we have consulted the Anglesey County Council—which is the local planning authority—the conservators of the common, the Nature Conservancy, the Society for the Preservation of Rural Wales, and the various amenity bodies which have an interest in the area, including the Commons Preservation Society. None of them has raised any objection in principle to the Bill, and we have been able to meet the points of interest that have been raised. We have, indeed, received much co-operation and assistance, particularly from the conservators of the common and the Anglesey County Council, for which I should like to express my appreciation.
The Bill is relatively simple. Its main purpose is to extinguish the rights of common and other rights over approximately 55 acres of land which we need for the runway extension; and to provide for the payment of compensation. This is the purpose of Clauses 1, 3 and 4. It will be necessary to carry storm water from the runway to the nearest outlet. This will be done by building a drain across what will be common land to an outlet in the nearby River Crigyll, but since the drain will be covered after construction, it will not interfere with the general enjoyment of the common and it is not necessary to extinguish any rights over the line of the drain. Provision has, however, been made in Clause 2 for the temporary interference with the exercise of rights during the construction and subsequent maintenance of the drain, and the subject of compensation on this account is covered in Clause 3.
We know of no private rights of way over the land to be enclosed for the runway extension but, against the possibility that some may exist, Clause 4 provides for them to be extinguished; and for further compensation for any consequent loss or damage if claimed within a year of the passing of the Bill.
The land that needs to be enclosed for the runway extension runs alongside the River Crigyll on the southern end of the common and, without express provision in the Bill, there will be no access between the remaining parts of the common to the east and west of the extended runway. Clause 5, therefore, covers the use of a track which will provide for such access. It also preserves a right of access for the Gwynedd River Board, so that the Board can carry out its duties in relation to the River Crigyll.
As in other modern airfields, subsidiary works outside the airfield boundary are necessary, such as navigational and landing aids, lights, and similar minor works, which will be required in the future. Such installations do not interfere with the general enjoyment of the common and do not, therefore, justify extinguishing common and other rights, but legal provision for such additional works is essential. That is the purpose of Clause 6, which extends the power of the conservators to allow such works within the definition given, to receive financial consideration from time to time, and to apply any such moneys to the improvement and protection of other rights of the common.
We are sorry that we have to make even this relatively small encroachment on the common, but I assure the House that we have limited our proposals to the hare minimum that is essential if this airfield, which brings a good measure of civilian employment to the island and plays a considerable part in its economy, is to continue to make a useful contribution to our national defence.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Air for the clear explanation he has given us of the Bill. I have more than a passing interest, because Towyn Trewan is in my constituency, and not many miles from my home.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, a large part of the common was acquired


at the commencement of the last war for the purposes of the Royal Air Force—between 650 and 700 acres, I think—and the Towyn Trewan Common Act, 1950 extinguished the common rights in respect of the area, made arangements for the payment of compensation, and so on. Therefore, it would probably be accurate to say that this Measure is an extension of the 1950 Act.
The Royal Air Force wants to extend its main runway. The Under-Secretary did not say precisely by how much the runway is to be extended, and perhaps he will tell the House just why this work is required, and what are the Air Force and military reasons for it. In order to extend the runway, the Royal Air Force needs more of the common land, and this Bill provides for the acquisition of the additional acreage.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is no formal objection to the Bill from the County Council, the Valley Rural District Council, or the parish councils concerned. There are three parish councils involved—Llanfair-yn-neubwll, Llechylched and Llanfaelog—and I understand that all three are agreeable to the Bill's provisions.
I am informed that the attitude of the county council remains as it was when the previous Act was passed in 1950, and perhaps I might read the resolutions that it passed at the time, as they are relevant to the present as well. The first resolution was in the following terms:
That this Council welcome the Air Ministry's decision to make the R.A.F. Station at Valley a permanent Station and their intention to proceed forthwith with the erection of permanent buildings for the accommodation of R.A.F. personnel together with Married Quarters for Officers and Airmen; they also express their gratification with the statement contained in the recent White Paper on 'Wales' that the aerodrome is available as an emergency and diversionary airport for regular civil air services.
The availability there mentioned was one of the reasons why the county council supported the 1950 Act, and I think that the Under-Secretary should tell us what the present position is in relation to the use of the Valley aerodrome for civil purposes. I do not want to depart from the substance of the Bill, but in North Wales we are very ill-served in respect of civil air services, and any indication that facilities are available at

Valley would be welcomed by the people of the area. The other resolution stated:
That this Council agree that it is not practicable lo reprovide elsewhere the part of Tywyn Trewan Common required for the purpose of the aerodrome and are of the opinion that the claims of the commoners and the owners of the soil can be adequately met by payment of compensation which the Council understand the Air Ministry are prepared to pay in full.
May we at this stage be told something about the compensation rights contained in the Bill? Has any agreement been reached with the commoners about this? I note that in Clause 3 an estimate of £1,500 is given, but can the Under-Secretary say whether this is acceptable to the commoners? It should also be made clear that a Bill which extinguishes common and public rights and rights of way should not be taken lightly. It is our duty to scrutinise Bills of this kind most carefully.
A much neglected report is that of the Royal Commission on Common Land which was published in 1958. That Commission made some important recommendations which hon. Members should bear in mind when considering a Bill of this kind. Paragraph 404 of that Report stated:
We have come to the conclusion that, as the last reserve of uncommitted land in England and Wales, common land ought to be preserved in the public interest
Paragraphs 253 to 255 recommend that Defence Departments—and this is precisely relevant to the Bill—when requiring common land should allow other uses to continue to the maximum possible extent. Paragraphs 253 and 254 of the Report refer spceifically to Anglesey, and Towyn Trewan is mentioned as a site of special scientific interest. I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary say that he had consulted the Nature Conservancy Authority and other interested authorities on their interest in the common.
I am glad to see that in Clause 5 maximum provision is made for the use by the public of the track from the western end of the bridge over the River Crigyll to the Trewan Sands. Are any other rights of way to be extinguished by the Bill and, if so, is provision being made for alternative rights of way for the public?
I turn to the most important point I have to make in connection with the Bill; Clause 6, which will give the conservators power to permit certain additional works in the future. Clause 6 appears to enable the conservators to allow the Secretary of State the right, in certain circumstances, to carry out additional works which could conceivably make use of the whole of the remainder of the common. There is not much of it left, for the right hon. Gentleman's Department has taken most of it and if the Under-Secretary will look at subsection (5) he will see that it states:
In this section "additional works" means any of the following, that is to say—

(a) pipes and drains, other than the drain referred to in section 2 of this Act, and works in connection with such pipes and drains;
(b) electrical apparatus, electric lines (within the meaning of the Electric Lighting Act 1882) and works in connection therewith;
(c) means of access (whether for vehicles or for foot passengers) to land in the occupation of the Secretary of State,
and any reference to the construction of additional works shall be construed accordingly.
These works, it seems, could be carried out without any member of the public being able to make any representations at all, provided the owners of the soil are willing to give their consent.
I suggest that these are very wide powers indeed. Public rights may, apparently, be taken without the knowledge of the public. I would have thought that hon. Members would want to look at this provision most carefully before giving it our final approval. The Under-Secretary may argue that these are limited and necessary powers, and I agree that they are, but, for instance, subsection (5) could be interpreted widely in the future. Subsection (5, c) states:
means of access (whether for vehicles or for foot passengers) to land in the occupation of the Secretary of State,".
Could that not mean a good deal of land being involved? Could new roads and footpaths be constructed under this clause? It seems obvious, therefore, that some additional safeguard in the Bill is required to protect the public interest.
I do not want for a moment to suggest that there is any major abjection to the Bill. That is not the case. We appreciate the contribution which the R.A.F. makes to the economy of the island. I

certainly appreciate that—especially during the period of difficult unemployment—this Air Force Station has given employment to more than 200 civilians in Anglesey, and this has been an important factor.
However, the Clause gives wide powers over common land; powers which seem to be contrary to the spirit and recommendations of the Royal Commission. Perhaps the Bill might provide that the consent of, say, the County Council should be obtained for such additional works? That would probably meet the case and would meet any criticism which may be made. Subject to these reservations I offer no objection to the Bill and hope that it has a successful passage through all its stages.

5.26 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I wish to say a word or two on the Bill, but I must first declare an interest, living, as I do, just two or three miles from the Valley Airport. I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on having had so few objections to a Bill of this character, because one's experience in regard to the abolition of common rights is that one usually produces much more opposition in dealing with it than one does when dealing even with privately-owned property.
However, I should like to know—and to echo what was said by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes)—more about the civilian position. I observe that the reason for the Bill is the lengthening of a runway by quite a substantial amount; by about 400 yards, I believe. If so, will it be possible to consider the civilian aspect involved? As I understand it, Valley was a diversionary airfield for Prestwick. It does not suffer from the considerable amount of fog from which other airfields suffer. I believe that some time ago there was an agreement by the Air Ministry over the use of this airfield for civilian purposes. It seems that that did not continue for any considerable time but, in view of the shortage of civilian airfields in North Wales, I wonder if this aspect can be reconsidered now?

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Ridsdale: By leave of the House, I should like to answer some of the points which have been raised in the


debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), who over a number of years has taken a helpful interest in the R.A.F. activities at Valley.
I will deal, firstly, with the two smaller points he made at the beginning of his speech, and, in doing so, I would refer him to the first part of my speech in which I gave the reason why the R.A.F. want these facilities. This airfield at Anglesey is equipped with all the facilities for training in the use of modern weapons in the way the Service requires, with the latest types of aircraft. But the main runway must be extended before it can be used in complete safety by these aircraft. "Safety" is the operative word here. The hon. Member for Anglesey asked by how much it would be extended. The answer is by about 1,500 feet; that is, about 900 feet within the existing boundaries—and 600 feet outside.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: The Under-Secretary of State said that the airfield is operating with the modern weapons but will not be absolutely safe until the extension is completed. Do we infer from that statement that some pilots are using the airfield although it is not known whether it is safe to do so?

Mr. Ridsdale: No. It is a question of the later types of aircraft which may be used. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they are not using that airfield without due consideration for safety in any way.
On the question of the use of the airfield by civil operators, which was raised by the hon. Member for Anglesey and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), I am aware of the interest of the hon. Member for Anglesey in this matter, but I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot lived so close to Valley. I am afraid I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on previous occasions, that it would be dangerous to both sides to mix regular civil air services with jet pilot training. It would certainly interfere with the training schedule. We are somewhat limited in the number of good training grounds available to us, and I am sorry that I cannot allow any interference with flying from Valley or from its relief landing ground at Mona. We

have always made facilities available to civil aircraft in an emergency, and this will continue.
With regard to the question of compensation raised by the hon. Member for Anglesey, we have already begun negotiating with the surveyor appointed by the commoners to look after their interests. As the surveyor is representing some 200 commoners he has, not surprisingly, asked for more time to study his brief. Since we are all anxious that a just and fair settlement should be reached, I have readily agreed to this and that is why I am unable to place before the House more than an estimate of the compensation that will be awarded.
Secondly, I should like to deal with the question of footpaths which the hon. Member for Anglesey has raised and particularly with his remarks with regard to the Royal Commission. We are doing all we can to see that the commoners have the opportunity to use the paths as freely as possible subject to the use that the Royal Air Force makes of them. Indeed, I fully appreciate the importance of being able to get down to the beach, especially in the summer months. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the footpath will not be disturbed by the runway extension. The footpath will have to be diverted while the drain mentioned in Clause 2 is being built and while any subsequent maintenance is carried out, but once this is done the footpath will be available as before.
There is one other track about which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is concerned. It is the track from the level crossing round the airfield to the footbridge over the River Crigyll. We have included in Clause 5 provision to allow the track to be used by the public. Some grading of the land where the track runs will be needed, and we shall do this at the same time as the runway is being lengthened. I know that the conservators are worried about the bit of track which runs along the river. They fear that in the winter it will become a quagmire.
We think that this is something which can be settled during the discussions with the surveyor about compensation. It is to be a track and not a metal road and will provide reasonable access for the commoners, their animals and their agricultural implements. But since it is not a


proper road, I do not think that this is something which should be written into the Bill. I am sure that we can reach an understanding with the conservators on this point in our local discussions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be good and fair landowners and pay particular attention to the rights of commoners. As far as I know, these are the only two tracks, rights of way, common paths which will be affected by our extension.
Lastly, there is, as the hon. Member for Anglesey mentioned, the important point in Clause 6 of the Bill. It has been suggested that the Air Ministry should ask county council permission before starting any extra works under Clause 6 because, as the hon. Gentleman stated, there was the fear of further building and extension on this part of the land. Let me say once again that I am very grateful to the council for all the help it has given in connection with the Bill. I can quite understand that it is anxious that the rest of the common should not be built upon without it first being consulted. However, I think I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that there is certainly no possibility that works carried out under Clause 6 would take up the whole of the rest of the common. The hon. Gentleman will see from subsection (5) that the works which can be done are, indeed, of a very restricted nature. They are navigational and landing aids, pipes and drains and similar minor additions.
This Clause has been deliberately worded to prevent any extension of building and anything done under the Clause would result at most in a temporary interference with the use of the common by either the commoners or the public. For this reason and because the conservators, five of whom are appointed by the local parish council, represent the owners of the common and the local people, I did not think it necessary to write into the Bill the need to consult the county council. We have, however, offered the council a formal undertaking to do so before we start any works. I hope that this will satisfy the council.
In conclusion, I wish to stress once again that we are sorry that we have to make even this relatively small encroachment on the common land and to assure

the House that we have limited the proposals under the Bill to the minimum essential if the airfield is to continue to make a useful contribution to our national defence.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, because I think there is a desire on both sides that the Bill should have an unopposed Second Reading so that the extension of the airfield can be undertaken. However, I am bound to warn the Under-Secretary of State that we shall want to know a little more about some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) before the House passes the Bill. I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to look again at the point on Clause 6.
I do not understand why a formal undertaking is given, as it were, outside the powers of Parliament when, on the face of it, it would seem quite reasonable in a matter of this sort to give the county council what it wishes. We also want to know a little more before the final stage about the compensation involved. I do not think that anybody would wish to delay the Bill because it brings employment to Anglesey as well as serving a very important purpose for the Royal Air Force. I understand that excellent relations exist between the Royal Air Force and the local people and that there is a great deal of good will in Anglesey.
I hope that the station will, as a result of this Measure, be used more, and I would say, although one does not wish to press the point now, that more thought ought to be given, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey made plain, to the use of this airfield in some civilian capacity. The weather there appears to be excellent and I understand that during and after the war it was very extensively used for transport between this country and the United States. It would, of course, not only help the local population if more work were available but would also provide an additional airfield because, unhappily, owing to our climate a lot of aircraft have to be diverted.
I hope, therefore, that further thought will be given to these points. In our sending the Bill forward it must not be assumed that my hon. Friend's points are finished. As the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the Valley airfield and an even greater interest in the general problem of providing employment for Anglesey. Unhappily, prosperity seems to have bypassed this very beautiful part of Wales and if, as a result of this Measure and the representations made in the debate, we can do anything to meet this position I am sure that all hon. Members will be satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered,
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the tenth day after this day, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,
being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

Ordered,
That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the com-

mittal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Ordered,
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them.

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. H. Fraser.]

Orders of the Day — TOWYN TREWAN COMMON [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extinguish certain rights of common, private rights of way and other rights in respect of lands forming part of Towyn Trewan Common in the county of Anglesey, and to enable certain works to be carried out on other lands forming part of the Common, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of that Act.—[Mr. H. Fraser.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Command Paper No. 1835).—[Mr. Brooke.]

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I beg to move, at the end of the Question to add:
but regrets the failure of Her Majesty's Government to carry through an effective policy for the expansion of industry and the alleviation of unemployment in Northern Ireland".
It is a somewhat surprising departure that the Home Secretary should have moved that we take note of the Report in such a formal way. After all the "ballyhoo" we had when the Hall Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland was set up, following the long period of deliberation and gestation after which both Governments agreed to set up the Committee, the right hon. Gentleman would have been eager to tell the House of the important decisions of that Committee so that the House, rather than hear me move an Amendment, should know, first, the degree of the resultant triumph achieved by both Governments. But we must wait for the words of wisdom and the degree of the triumph until later in the debate.
The terms of reference of the Working Party were:
To examine and report on the economic situation of Northern Ireland, the factors causing the persistent problem of high unemployment, and what measures can be taken to bring about a lasting improvement.
Those of us who have taken a great interest in the problems of Northern Ireland know how necessary it is that a Committee such as this should be able to fulfil its terms of reference.
We know that for many years unemployment in Northern Ireland has been running at far and away a heavier rate than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Over the last ten years or so it has fluctuated between a little over 10 per cent. and 6·1 per cent., with a mean of about 7·5 per cent. This very high rate is one which some of us feel has not received attention either from the Government of Northern Ireland or, particularly for our purpose, from the

Government of this country who have responsibilities of a most important character for the well-being of our fellow-citizens there.
I have read the debate in the Northern Ireland Parliament on the Working Party's Report and the criticisms in the Press of the content of that Report. Probably on all sides it would be agreed that the Report is a thoroughly disappointing document. With the addition of an appeal for more migration and less wages, it seems to me roughly the mixture as before.
If I may follow the restrained language of the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, speaking at Stormont on 30th October, he said:
I cannot refrain from expressing some disappointment that in the final analysis the Report has not suggested any new approach capable within the near future of bringing about a substantial change in the present situation.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but it is, of course, a comment very different from that which Stormont heard from the same right hon. Gentleman on 25th October last year, when he said:
… the Hall Committee is not just another committee. We got that committee by the sweat of our brows. We had to fight for it. The members of that committee have the best brains we have here. Hon. Members opposite may say they are not great, but my opinion is that they are great—the highest in the Civil Service … if those brains cannot solve the problem I do not know the remedy.
This sounds like famous last words for the hopes of many thousands of people in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the present position. We must remind ourselves that the present position comes after forty years of undisputed power held by the party represented by the Prime Minister. I have read conscientiously the three-day debate at Stormont at the end of October and at the beginning of this month. Irrespective of where they sit in the House, hon. Members, and especially those from Northern Ireland, will agree that widespread dismay and anxiety was expressed by practically every hon. Member who took part in that debate.
For my part, there was also a welcome change in that from some unexpected


quarters there was some degree of support for the suggestions which the Northern Ireland Labour Party has been making for a considerable time. We do not claim to be more than five or six years ahead of the Tories at any time and it is beneficial to our ego to know that at last we have managed to persuade some of the hon. Members in Northern Ireland. They had not seen fit to accept suggestions made by our friends over there, but now, in the light of the dismal failure of the Working Party, they are prepared to look again at these suggestions.
On 4th May, 1961, the Working Party, composed of senior officials both of the United Kingdom Government and of that of Northern Ireland, was set up. It reported to the two Governments on 8th June this year. We then had to wait a further four months before we knew the contents of the Report and before the debate at Stormont took place. Despite the fact that the problems of Northern Ireland were intense eighteen months ago, we now know that the period which has elapsed has been a sheer waste of time and that the problem is practically as acute as ever.
Reading the Report, except where it does not throw up the sponge altogether, I find that it merely suggests the continuation of past policies, which are policies with which those of us who take an interest in development districts and the distribution of industry policy are quite familiar. The thing that distresses me is that, in the Report itself, the Working Party forecast, as we all expected, no real improvement, even in the present very difficult position, for quite a number of years to come. I should have thought that that is a most dismal prospect, especially for those who are unemployed in Northern Ireland.
I have been critical of the Working Party, but, in being critical, I am not necessarily blaming its members. What I certainly am doing is to blame those who set it up to perform a task which, of its very nature, was completely beyond the scope of such a Committee. I have said that it was composed of civil servants who serve this Government and the Northern Ireland Government. As I understand, civil servants are employed to administer the policies of the Govern-

ments they serve. They are certainly not there to teach Governments how to govern. It could be argued, however, that both these Governments badly need somebody who can teach them that, but that is not the job of civil servants. Indeed, to expect civil servants to teach Governments how to govern would be a complete abdication of the power which the electorate have conferred upon any Government.
A further point is this. Had this Working Party produced a whole series of recommendations for measures as yet untried, it would certainly have been a most crushing indictment by the Working Party itself of the two Governments, whose efforts over many years have failed so dismally to eliminate the serious unemployment in Northern Ireland. Further, it is the case that any Civil Service based on the British pattern is restricted in the approach which it can possibly make to any large-scale economic and political problems by the general policies of the existing Governments for whose benefit they are engaged.
I have said that in Northern Ireland we have had forty years of this kind of Government. Over here, we have had it for eleven consecutive years. I should have thought that that was quite enough, in all conscience, to stifle any radical tendencies in the breasts of the most adventurous souls within the higher reaches of our Civil Service. Certainly, if there are any vestiges of adventure still left in their breasts, they know perfectly well that, because of the composition of both Governments any such radical remedies would be turned down, and that it would be a waste of time to put them in their reports, anyway.
We can see one illustration of that in the Working Party's recommendations. In paragraph 90 of the Report, it is stated that the Working Party does not find any case for any general expansion of a programme of public works. This is an astounding statement to make. We have seen for many years such public works as the Roosevelt New Deal, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and so on, in which Governments, irrespective of their politics, accept that when we are in a depression the one sector of the economy which they can control is the public sector, and expenditure on public works is a well-known remedy which


has been successful on very many occasions. I do not understand why, in the conditions of Northern Ireland as it is now, the Working Party sees no point in recommending any general expansion of a programme of public works.
A further important fact which should have been obvious to members of this Government and the Northern Ireland Government, is that in setting up a Working Party consisting of civil servants of the two Governments, they were setting up a Committee which consisted of incompatible interests. In other words, had there been, as there were, any suggestions made by the civil servants of Northern Ireland which were bound, by their very nature, to result in a great increase in the amount of finance which this Government would have to find, quite obviously, the civil servants of this Government would have been bound to oppose it, irrespective of what they felt about the merits.
The only people who can agree to such an expansion or to an increase in the financial expenditure of the Treasury here are the Members of the Government themselves. How could it possibly be the case that there could be unity of interest between the two sides of such a Working Party, when the civil servants of both Governments know perfectly well that any schemes of a comprehensive nature would probably be well beyond the scope, in the sense of increased finance, to which the Ministers concerned would agree?
I assert that our Amendment makes clear that our criticism is directed in the main at this Government. In passing, I may say that it has to reflect, and it does reflect, on the lack of effort which we believe is obvious from the Government of Northern Ireland. Our criticisms are directed at the two Governments which have failed, and not at those behind whom these Governments are seeking to hide. We have more sympathy than anything else for civil servants placed in that position.
I know that some of the usual measures for dealing with development areas have for long been taken in Northern Ireland, and that this Government have contributed, and are still contributing, a great deal of money. We have seen in Northern Ireland itself the production of advance factories, and we

know that the Government have tried to induce industrialists to open businesses over there, but it is the fact that over the last ten years the unemployment rate has varied between 10 per cent. and 6 per cent., with an average of 7½ per cent., of the insured population, as against 1½ per cent. until recently over here.
It is quite obvious that insufficient has been done by both Governments to meet the particular problems of Northern Ireland, and the result of that is the heavy unemployment which I have mentioned. A further result has been the extremely heavy migration from Northern Ireland. One could bring together the net results of the last ten years by pointing out that, at the end of them, the number of jobs actually available is less than it was at the beginning, in 1951. One would be hard put to find a greater indictment than that.
The question which the House must ask itself is whether we are now prepared to accept as quite inevitable, as an act of God, as it were, the continuation in a part of the United Kingdom of a rate of unemployment which is scandously excessive when judged either on humanitarian grounds or on the loss to the United Kingdom of the production of wealth which chronic unemployment presupposes. If the answer we give to that question is that we are not prepared to see this massive unemployment persist, we must then ask ourselves whether we are prepared to accept new policies either in supplementation of or in substitution for policies which have partially or wholly failed to eliminate it. This will be the acid test from now on of how far either this Government or the one in Northern Ireland are prepared to go.
To put the problem in statistical form, the actual increase in population between 1951 and 1961 was 54,600. The natural increase during that period was 146,300. In other words, the estimated net emigration from Northern Ireland was 91,800, and, be it noted, this came from a population of less than 1½ million. If we take the figures of employed, we see that, as a result of the policies pursued during the past ten years, while there were in civil employment at June, 1951, 547,000, at December, 1961, there were 534,000, a decrease of 13,000 jobs during that period.


Implicit in the whole conception of development district policy is that one looks at the effect upon the economy of the country of the measures one is taking within the development districts. Adopting that criterion, what was the value of imports over exports for the last two years for which figures are available? In 1959, there was a deficit of £37·4 million. In 1960, it was £35·6 million. These are disastrous facts. I am at a loss to understand how any two Governments can display—I do not want to use the word "cynicism"—such a lack of real urgency in the efforts which they are prepared to make.
In paragraph 67 of the Report, under the heading "Objects of Policy", the Working Party says:
The economic difficulties of Northern Ireland are like those of the development districts of Great Britain, though more acute, and the policy for dealing with them must, we assume, be on similar lines also.
I ask the House to consider that statement carefully. I suggest that it is part of the basic fallacy which is causing the disappointing results to which I have referred.
There is no similarity whatever between the problems of development districts in Britain and the problem of distribution of industry in Northern Ireland. Over here, we give an area development district status according to certain criteria. It is an area less well placed for industry, its industries are dying, and there is need to infuse more purchasing power into the economy. We single out such an area and say that it shall have development district status. One of the ways in which such a district receives assistance is that it is surrounded by other areas which have not the economic problems which merit development district status. That is the position over here, and it is upon that that we base our development district policy.
How can that be compared with Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland is one great development area. The situation is entirely different. To suggest, as the Working Party does in paragraph 67, that the policies pursued over here are the natural ones to be considered for Northern Ireland shows an utterly false reading of the problem.
Let us consider a little further what happens in Britain. We have over here a feature which is causing all of us from the North the greatest concern, namely, the drift from the North to the South. My hon. Friends from Scotland and the north of England never lose an opportunity to complain of the conditions which force that drift to the South.

Mr. Dan Jones: And we shall have to complain again.

Mr. William Ross: We do not get any satisfaction.

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is quite right we do not get satisfaction. However, it is the fact that, despite the high level of unemployment in Scotland and the north of England, that level is minimised to the extent that the drift to the South continues. High as the figures are, that is so. With some experience of working distribution of industry policy, I suggest that the rate of unemployment which we see in Scotland and the north of England has been reduced to even its present level quite as much by the drift to the South as by any of the measures taken under the Local Employment Act.
An unemployed man in Northern Ireland has no London and the South-East to drift to. He has no huge industrial conurbation in the Midlands to which he can go. A man out of work in Northern Ireland is out of work in a huge development district. There is no way in which any surrounding district can help to bring economic health back to the hard-hit areas of Northern Ireland as is sometimes possible in Britain.
I can understand people in Northern Ireland gaining the impression sometimes that successful steps are taken over here which are not taken in their country. This is just not true. If I am right about that, how absurd is the idea that any body of people sitting down seriously to consider the terms of reference of the Working Party could believe that all that is necessary is to apply to Northern Ireland the remedies which are applied in Great Britain. It is demonstrable nonsense to assert that they could possibly have any real effect. Otherwise, will somebody tell me why the measures which have been applied to minimise unemployment in Northern Ireland for so


many years following the pattern of what has been done in certain areas in Britain have failed?
I tell the Government here and the one at Stormont that, if they intend to confine their thinking now merely to the measures we have seen in the past, they will find that there is nothing more certain than that they will continue the story of dismal failure we have now before us.
One of Northern Ireland's problems is that the main industries are contracting at one and the same time. Shipbuilding, textiles, agriculture and aircraft construction are all contracting. I, therefore feel some sympathy for those who have to deal with this great problem. There are very few compensating factors such as we have here in Northern Ireland. The compensating element over here is that other industries are expanding while the older ones are contracting. There is no feature such as this in Northern Ireland. I know of no industry in Northern Ireland employing a large number of people which is expanding as others are contracting. This is entirely different from the situation in this country.
Those who have to deal with these problems in Northern Ireland have to keep on running at an ever-increasing pace to prevent themselves from going backwards. I do not wish to keep on criticising the people who produced this Report, but if the Northern Ireland Prime Minister's statement that I quoted was anything like the fact some of the obvious truths to which I have referred should have appealed to them in the minute examination of the economic problems of Northern Ireland which they had the opportunity to make.
I realise that a fair number of jobs have been created in Northern Ireland over the last ten years. But it is not sufficient for any hon. Member to say that as a result of the efforts made there a certain number of new jobs have been provided. We must try to find out how many of the new jobs as well as the old ones have folded up. I am told that about a quarter of the jobs created in the 1950s were in industries which were already declining over here and that a considerable percentage of those new jobs have folded up.
This is a situation which can only have been brought about by a complete

lack of planning. [Laughter.] The Home Secretary need not laugh. Perhaps he has not heard it said that he is a planner as weld these days. Perhaps the news has not yet reached the Home Office. Unless we produce the type of jobs which have a future and which will play a part in solving our overall economic problems, we might just as well put the unemployed to work on digging holes in order to fill them up again. By this higgledy-piggledy way of creating any sort of job, we are merely replacing big, declining industries on which our economy was based by a conglomeration of human activities completely irrelevant to our economic position. That is what has been happening in Northern Ireland.
In this country we do not discriminate between the sort of employers we encourage to go to our development districts. How much more necessary is it in an economy like Northern Ireland's that people should not merely be satisfied to get a temporary job in some part of Northern Ireland, but that that job should bear a relationship to the future activities of the industry concerned, to the economic problems of Northern Ireland and to the hope that it will be in itself a breeder which will bring more jobs in its wake. The employment of skilled labour results in the employment of unskilled labour.
Hon. Members may say that it is easy for me to preach. I know that we are caught in something of a vicious circle. Once an area has heavy unemployment, it is not unnatural for it to jump at the chance of getting any industry which is willing to go to the area rather than discriminate in favour of industries whose development will aid our economy. But an doing that we deprive ourselves of the power to plan—I did not hear a snigger that time from the Home Secretary—and predetermine the type of industrial base which will best assist us in obtaining and maintaining full employment and economic solvency. I commend to the Government the thought that if we are to obtain the maximum benefit from the expenditure being incurred on this great problem in Northern Ireland, that kind of thinking must play a far greater part in future than it has done in the past.
I know that Northern Ireland has some disadvantages which do not exist over


here. Transport costs are quite a problem. As far as I can see, there is not a great deal of industrial development based on Northern Ireland's own indigenous raw material. This is a serious criticism of both the Government here and the Northern Ireland Government. Friends of mine in the Northern Ireland Labour Party have suggested that the Government should have based a great deal more of the new industry on the ancillary industries of agriculture—on the dead meat and processing industries, and so on. As far as my investigations show, there has been precious little of that obvious development taking place over there.
We have to try to minimise the natural disadvantages of transport costs, and so on, as best we can. Therefore, if we have no plans to develop the industries whose use of raw material imports in their products is most sparing, we shall not have a viable economy, no matter how much work we put into it.
I should not describe it as a blinding flash of the obvious, but it is suggested in the Report that there should be an investigation into the uses of air freight. I hope that such an investigation is instituted. I have to do a little of this kind of work in another capacity. Air freight costs are fairly high. There is not the slightest doubt that the percentage of global products transported by air will increase spectacularly. Delivery dates are a very important part of the challenge for markets. They are as important as the question of cost in many ways. I hope that one of the results of this inquiry will be special rates for air transport.
If I am right in arguing for the industry which employs in the manufacture of its end-product more and more skilled labour and less and less raw material, which, I think, is the answer to Northern Ireland's problem, then air freight is the right sort of transport. In other words, one can transport value at a far higher percentage than one can if one is transporting very bulky products.
I said, to the dismay of the Home Secretary, that I see no sign in Northern Ireland that there has been any attempt to plan new development on a properly co-ordinated basis and with due consideration of the expansion possibilities

I have discussed. Therefore, far from the Prime Minister being right in saying that if the Hall Committee does not find an answer then there is not one, I think that in some of the lines of argument I have been using lies some sort of hope of finding a solution to this problem. If I am wrong I should like the Home Secretary, when he replies, to prove that I am wrong.
Do not let him simply sneer at the word "planning", or make out an electioneering sneer about planners and then become a planner overnight, as the Prime Minister has done, but really, if they are going to face the issue of being planners, they had better tell some of their colleagues at Stormont that the time has come when they also had better accept the basis of a planned economy. The Northern Ireland Labour Party has for long been demanding the setting up of a development corporation and of an economic planning council sponsored by the Government.
Here we come to the issue which I mentioned earlier. Are they, in fact, prepared to go outside the dogma which obsesses both this Government and the Northern Ireland Government in order to find a solution of the problem, or do they prefer the problem to accepting the defeat of their own policy? Because unless this Government and their counterpart over there are prepared to accept the basis of a planned economy I charge them that they are not interested in the sense that they should be in the terrible problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, I put it to them that they should again examine the suggestion of a development corporation which could channel investment in the right directions, which could examine research and that kind of thing which is so essential if we are to set up new industries rather than the dismal and silly projects without any relationship to one another which one has seen grow up in some parts of Northern Ireland. The main issue on this is a political challenge, and if it is not taken up I assert that the people of Northern Ireland can know quite clearly that the Government, rather than accept the challenge that their own policies are not good enough, prefer unemployment instead.
I do not want to go in detail into the Report, but if we take paragraph 190


we see that it is discussing here the points I have just been making about the development council and the economic planning council. This is the language used:
We do not think it either constitutionally appropriate or practically necessary to set up an autonomous body of either kind.
What in heaven's name does that language mean?
We do not think it either constitutionally appropriate or practically necessary …
This is a body whose terms of reference asked it to look at the problem of Northern Ireland and suggest remedies. I see nothing which is "constitutionally inappropriate" in the setting up of a development council. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what is the constitutionally inappropriate part of such a procedure. Certainly, it is common practice in many other countries of the world. Why should it be thought, for the one which needs it more than any other, that it suddenly becomes "constitutionally inappropriate"? Maybe it was the source from which the suggestion came that is inappropriate so far as the Northern Ireland Government are concerned.
These are the things which must be swept away if this problem is really to be tackled successfully. I think that, as I have said to the right hon. Gentleman, we should now extend even some of the vehicles of planning machinery which we are setting up in this country. When he sneered just now about planners, he forgot that his right hon. Friend has set up "Neddy" in order to do the planning work for Britain. Whether it can achieve it or not is a moot paint, perhaps, but, nevertheless, it is, at any rate paying lip service to the idea of planning.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I know that my hon. Friend would not desire to be unfair to the Hall Committee, so may I draw his attention to paragraph 191, in which the Committee says:
The scope of economic planning in the first sense is therefore very limited, since the powers of the Government of Northern Ireland are themselves limited.
Therefore, what arises is the action or non-action of this Government, and not of the Northern Ireland Government.

Mr. Lee: I agree with my hon. Friend, but he will remember that the Amendment which we are moving is directed at this Government, it being far more the responsibility of this Government than it is of the Government of Northern Ireland. I agree about the limitations over there; but I do not like the way in which the Northern Ireland Government seem to accept limitations upon themselves. I should like to see a struggle now and again to get away from the limitations.
I am putting it to the right hon. Gentleman, if "Neddy" is considered by this Government to be the answer to the less severe problems of Britain, why is it not appropriate to Northern Ireland? Why not? May I suggest that a member of "Neddy" should be appointed—or two members—from Northern Ireland, so that they can sit in on the discussions and the planning, the estimates of the need for increased productivity, and so on? This, I would have thought, is a constructive suggestion which the Government ought now to consider.
There is another issue which, I think, is of very considerable importance, and it detracts from the hopes of Northern Ireland being able to get much in the way of new industries from this country. If we look at industry as a whole now we see that the units are growing bigger and bigger. We may regret it, but we are in the period, which I have described in another context, of either public or private monopoly. That is, in the great industries; but even in the industries which used to be small we find that, in order to save overheads, and because of the nature of the new industrial processes, each of the units is growing bigger and bigger.
This does not lend itself to that which is hoped for over there—keeping a series of small factories. We find that industrialists who want to modernise their plants inevitably have to make themselves into bigger units than was previously the case. It is also the case that we get processes which depend upon their nearness to one another, and when there is a tremor in the economy of any factory it causes the closing down of factories in a development district, and these things are now working against development in Northern


Ireland in a way which has to be taken seriously into consideration.
We know that in the Report there is discussion of the need for the training of personnel and the unemployed. I do not think that this Government have ever done anything like enough, nor do I think that the Government in Northern Ireland have. Nevertheless, the kind of industry I have been discussing—I do not want to repeat myself: the end product containing a great degree of skilled labour, and so on—is, of course, dependent upon a large supply of pretty highly skilled personnel. As I read it, of the young people entering industry or wishing to enter industry in Northern Ireland fewer than one-sixth have any chance of obtaining an apprenticeship to a skilled trade. Therefore, even if we were successful in getting the sort of industries which I have suggested we should find ourselves extremely short of the very type of labour upon which they depend for their prosperity.
When one looks at the industrial development—call it automation or whatever else one likes—in any of the great manufacturing nations, it means that the ratio of skilled to unskilled labour must now rapidly increase. This is an inevitable result of the modernisation process. If the tendency that I see in Northern Ireland, with less than one-sixth of the school leavers getting apprenticeships, continues, it is obvious that there will be an even bigger problem of unemployed unskilled people and an equally large demand for nonexistent technologists and highly skilled craftsmen which will prevent our having the industrial development which could be the salvation of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. He has been speaking for 50 minutes. Many of us want to take part in the debate. I do not wish to be unconstructive, but I hope that he will take the point.

Mr. Lee: I have for many years listened to debates and never yet heard a single constructive suggestion from hon. Gentlemen opposite. But they will troop through the Lobby when it is time to do so. If hon. Members on this side of the House take slightly longer than

hon. Members opposite, so much higher are our hopes for a constructive suggestion being made. Therefore, I do not apologise in the least for reviewing the Working Party's Report in the absence of a review from the Home Secretary, who ought to have opened the debate.
The Hall Committee deplores the low level of productivity in Northern Ireland. Here is scope for investigation. Why should productivity levels be so low there? I can say from same experience that if one is working in an atmosphere in which there is massive unemployment, one does not listen to the economists who tell one that inefficiency will bring more unemployment. One hangs on to the job one has. Therefore, as long as the unemployment situation obtains in Northern Ireland, productivity will be below what it could be.
We are now in National Productivity Year—I have attended two or three functions in connection with it, and I have no doubt that other hon. Gentlemen have done so, too—but apparently in Northern Ireland they can afford not to have a productivity council; and in Northern Ireland of all places! Why have they no such council? It is because they still do not recognise the trade unions.
I want to help Northern Ireland in every way I can, financially and otherwise, but I would insist to the Northern Ireland Government that as one of the prerequisites to our spending millions of pounds trying to improve production there, they must use every instrument at their command to that end, and they cannot possibly achieve what they seek while they deliberately refuse to recognise the northern committees of the Irish trade unions. It is a fantastic situation. I do not know an employer in Britain who would dream of refusing to recognise the trade unions as important instruments in increasing his productivity. Yet in one part of the United Kingdom where productivity is criticised and unemployment is high, the Government insist upon treating trade unionists as though they were untouchables. As a prerequisite to the granting of more assistance, Her Majesty's Government should insist that this anomaly should be ended.
I want to ask a detailed question before I finish. I am extremely worried about the future of Short Bros. Other hon. Members opposite are, too. We have discussed the firm and the future of the Belfast Freighter, and we now know that there is not to be a further order when the present 10 aircraft have been produced. The Report says that even the conditions visualised in 1965 depend upon a certain level of employment for the Short factory. Should we now expect that the level will be lower than would otherwise have been the case as a result of the decision not to order any more Belfast Freighters? We know that there are some sub-contracts on the VC10 which the firm is to have. Will these substitute in any way for the loss of any future orders for the Belfast Freighter? What is the future of the SC1? Here we had a lead in vertical take-off over any other nation, and I believe that lead has been largely dissipated. Short's was first in the field with this. I have seen its developments even beyond the SC1, and I should like to know whether the firm can hope for any further orders for that kind of thing.
I have said that the Hall Report is a dismal failure. It is a great disappointment to us all. Perhaps the Home Secretary can tell us where we go from here. Is it now being said that because this Working Party has failed to find any solutions, there are no solutions to be found? As I put it earlier, is unemployment in Northern Ireland an act of God, or do Her Majesty's Government now accept the need for an overall plan with a development corporation which can co-ordinate our efforts and ensure that the money which we spend shall be wisely spent on the kind of industrial development I have tried to outline?
I move our Amendment because the major criticism is directed at Her Majesty's Government. They have been lacking in imagination and have not devoted enough effort to solving the problems of Northern Ireland, largely because of the attitude "out of sight, out of mind". We criticise the Government for that. I ask the House to accept the Amendment because if any hon. Members opposite, especially those from Northern Ireland, believe that they can get away with the Amendment which they have tabled, or by merely taking

note of a dismal Report like this one, they are letting down the people who sent them here.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: If I take as long as 55 minutes to make my remarks, I hope hon. Gentlemen will start throwing their Order Papers at me. We have, however, listened with interest to the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), and I shall come to his speech in a minute.
I begin by welcoming on behalf of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland constituencies the decision to have the debate on the Hall Report in Government time. During the last eighteen months I have been fortunate enough in the Ballot on two occasions to secure a private Members' day for discussion of Northern Ireland, and I have become rather apprehensive that my success may attract suspicion and that if I win the Ballot once again the Deputy-Leader of the Opposition might suggest that a Radcliffe type Committee should be appointed to investigate my methods. I am, therefore, very glad that this debate is in Government time.
My hon. Friends and I who represent Northern Ireland constituencies pay tribute to the former Home Secretary who is now the First Secretary of State. He was responsible for Northern Ireland from 1957 to 1962, which was for us a very difficult period because of I.R.A. terrorism and economic uncertainty. My right hon. Friend was always ready to see and help us, and we greatly appreciated his help. We recognise his tremendous assistance to Northern Ireland and we consider him to have been a very true friend.
We also take the opportunity of welcoming the new Home Secretary to his post. We know of his tremendous experience in Wales and we hope that he will have the same degree of success in Northern Ireland. We were glad he was able to visit us in Northern Ireland so quickly after his appointment, and we hope that during his stewardship we shall see a substantial step forward economically in Northern Ireland. Perhaps a new pair of eyes looking at our problems may be of value.
It had been my intention at this stage also to welcome the presence of Liberal


Members, because as recently as October the Chairman of the Liberal Party went to Northern Ireland and lectured us on what his party would do for Ulster. I expected him, therefore, to follow this up by getting all seven Liberal Members present at this debate. Unfortunately, they are not here. They are probably drafting a Press release explaining their failure in today's by-elections!
We welcome any constructive and sincere interest in the problems of Northern Ireland, from any quarter—and we make no qualification. We thank right hon. and hon. Members opposite for their attention and interest—for instance, Lord Robens and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley). Although we have disagreed with them on many occasions, they have always taken an interest which we have welcomed. What a tremendous contrast between their attitude and the speech of the hon. Member for Newton tonight. It was a heartless, mechanical, political speech and I hope it will be recognised as such.

Mr. Lee: Unemployment is heartless, I can assure the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member made what was essentially a political speech not particularly suited to this occasion. If it was aimed at the electorate of Northern Ireland, it was an insult to their intelligence. He has been taking an interest in Northern Ireland for some time and I am disappointed that he still does not seem to have a real grasp of the problems we face or to understand the progress that has been made. I wondered what was new and constructive in his speech compared with what was proposed in speeches from the Labour Front Bench six or seven years ago, but I found that it was a rehash, a proper dog's breakfast.

Mr. Lee: I would do it again.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Spare us that, please. There was very little positive in the speech. The hon. Gentleman said, for example, that only ideal types of industry should go to Northern Ireland, such as those closely connected with agriculture. These are certainly ideal industries for us, but they are not the only industries. Are we to turn away

others which come to us because they are not 100 per cent. ideal? We have had considerable success in getting all kinds of industry.

Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that the hon. Member is dealing with this point. As I see it, the desire in Northern Ireland is to attract industries with a high labour ratio rather than those with a high machine ratio. Will he tell us precisely what his ideas are?

Mr. Stratton Mills: I should have thought that that factor was clearly brought out in the Hall Report. The policy of the Government over the years has been to get industries with the maximum labour content rather than industries with a tremendous proportion of capital to labour. The hon. Member for Newton brought out all the old chestnuts about the development corporation with a wonderful use of the English language. But even the Northern Ireland Labour Party is beginning to realise that that one is a dead duck. He made a number of other points—vague promises, vague suggestions—and I could not help recalling the words of William Hazlett:
Some people make promises for the pleasure of breaking them.
The hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour Party will be in opposition for many years and will have little opportunity of implementing any of the proposals he made today. The Amendment will not be supported by hon. Members form Northern Ireland. We consider it essentially a political Amendment and will contemptuously vote against it.
I come now to the Hall Report. I want to impress upon my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the atmosphere of apprehension and uncertainty in Northern Ireland today. Much will be done to get Northern Ireland moving again if he can blow away the clouds of pessimism covering Ulster and create an atmosphere of confidence. Once confidence is created, much of value can be done.
I thought that the hon. Member for Newton was a little hard on the Hall Committee. Perhaps it was unimaginative in its approach, but it would be wrong if he were to classify the Committee as doctrinaire. As he will, of


course, know, Sir Robert Hall is politically to the Left. I put it no stronger. I have recently been reading his book The Economic System in a Socialist State. I commend it to the hon. Member. But the Committee did not approach any of the proposals from a doctrinaire angle. Its terms of reference were wide. It was to consider
… what measures can be taken to bring about a lasting improvement.
I would remind the hon. Member of the Motion passed unanimously by this House on 30th March last, saying that Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Northern Ireland
would be justified, if necessary, in taking exceptional measures
in solving our economic problems.
Have the Hall Report and the measures taken since by the Government come up to that standard? Lord Brookeborough used at Stormont recently the word "disappointing". I feel that that is what is in the hearts of most of us when looking at this Report. There are many useful ideas and valuable suggestions, with much useful analysis, but, above all, it lacks a "glamour girl". Perhaps that is one of the reasons why the public reaction to the Report has not been enthusiastic.
Is there any easy solution to regional unemployment such as we have in Northern Ireland? Many of us have seen a conjuror waving a magic wand. A conjuror might wave his wand over a copy of Erskine May, say "Abracadabra" and produce a bunny rabbit. There is no "Abracadabra" solution to our problems. Is there gold at the end of the rainbow for Northern Ireland? Or is one still driven back time and again to the realisation that there is no simple solution and that we are deluding ourselves if we think there is? Hon. Members may have read the Report of the Toothill Committee on the Scottish economy, a much broader Committee than the Hail Committee, in which it was said:
If there is a panacea for Scotland's economic problems we have not found it. It would indeed be remarkable if a single remedy were available for troubles so diverse in their origins.
I also refer the House to the words of Mr. David Bleakley, the Deputy Leader of the Northern Ireland Labour Party,

who, speaking at Stormont on 1st November, said:
If the Hall Committee within the confines of the task it was set, had been able to suggest that, in fact, something could be done from the other side of the water I am convinced that it would have suggested it.
This also supports the argument that there is no easy, simple solution. One must inevitably accept that this is the moment of truth, but it is not the moment to despair.
My most serious disagreement with the Hall Report is in its implicit acceptance of the continuation of unemployment at a level of about 7 per cent. The belief which the Report seems to move towards is that the ship, somehow or other, may float off the sandbank with rising economic activity in Britain and general prosperity in the Common Market. I hope that this evening the Home Secretary will be able to strike a more positive note and reject this negative attitude which I feel has done much to harm the Report.
There is a special matter in the Hall Report about which I should like my right hon. Friend to say a word. That is the suggested inquiry into air freight. I was glad to hear from an Answer given to a Question last week that the Air Licensing Board is to carry out this inquiry. I hope my right hon. Friend will give details of the method of working and will not allow B.E.A. entirely to monopolise the inquiry and place its dead hand upon it. Can it be made much wider? I hope the Home Secretary will be able to arrange the participation of the firm of Short Brothers & Harland in the inquiry.
In the debate on the Address on Monday, 5th November, the Leader of the House, when winding up, had quite a lot to say in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). In drawing to the end of his remarks, my right hon. Friend said:
In my view, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South, asked the key question, namely: is this enough? Is this the last word? Let me say quite flatly, no, it is not. We recognise that none of these additional measures will, of itself, solve the problem, and we shall not be satisfied until, in the closest consultation with all the Ministries concerned and particularly with the Northern Ireland Government, we have found a much better and, we hope, lasting solution


to this intractable problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1962; Vol. 666, c. 731.]
I take those words as encouragement. Perhaps in those words my right hon. Friend has given some hostages to fortune. I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to say more about what was in the mind of the Leader of the House and what further measures can be taken.
I now come to the Amendment in my name and the names of four hon. Friends, which seeks to add to the Government Motion:
and urges Her Majesty's Government, in co-operation with the Government of Northern Ireland, to set up a permanent Joint Committee of Ministers whose first task would be to formulate and implement proposals for a five year development plan aimed at making a substantial reduction in unemployment by the end of that period.
I assume, Mr. Speaker, that this Amendment is not being called, but I should like to refer to it in passing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure that these things work together. No doubt the hon. Member may say something but not necessarily refer to the Amendment covering grounds which would have been covered had it been selected, which it is not.

Mr. Stratton Mills: I simply pass it by, saying that it is a private and unofficial Amendment in the names not of all Northern Ireland Members but of some of us who feel that there is a certain gap in Ministerial responsibility concerning Northern Ireland. The point which had been in our minds, and which I think is very relevant to the debate, is the question of who is responsible for reducing unemployment in Northern Ireland. One cannot help feeling that over the years the presence of a separate Parliament at Stormont has led to a feeling at Westminster that the problem can be shuffled off to Stormont. I think there is certain evidence in that direction. Passing the buck is one of the oldest games in politics. I believe Harry Truman, when President of the United States of America, had on his desk a little plaque saying, "The buck stops here". Such are my thoughts about this Amendment.
I ask the Home Secretary to cast his eyes over and to consider reviewing the

overall system of Ministerial and Government responsibility between the two Governments. The situation in which the Home Secretary is directly responsible for Northern Ireland as a senior member of the Cabinet is in my view a good idea. I should not wish it to be interfered with, but I wonder whether there is not now a case for having a Minister of State solely responsible for Northern Ireland under the Home Secretary.
Such a Minister, I suggest, might sit in the House of Lords so that he would be able to get around much more both in England and in Northern Ireland. There is a respectable precedent for this in Wales. Such a Minister would be essentially a person with a Northern Ireland background. On many occasions he might regularly attend Northern Ireland Cabinet meetings by invitation. I think the system which operated before 1921, in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had a foot on either side of the Irish Sea, is one to which in some measure we should attempt to return.

Mr. Loughlin: Straddling the Giant's Causeway?

Mr. Stratton Mills: My right hon. Friend might also look at the idea suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South of a permanent joint committee of Ministers from Stormont and Westminster who would meet regularly. They could meet sometimes in Belfast and sometimes in London. I do not define too closely the Ministers on this side who would be members, but there are certain obvious ones who would be involved. The essential principal is that there would be joint responsibility for reducing unemployment. At the moment there is a vacuum to a certain extent. Responsibility would rest fairly and squarely with that committee. The first task of the committee should be to formulating a five-year development plan for Northern Ireland aimed at making a substantial reduction in employment in that period. If an extra 3.000 jobs a year could be provided by the direct initiative of that Committee over a five-year period, 15,000 jobs would be provided and unemployment would be brought down to about 3½ per cent. as an interim measure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) will expand in greater detail the idea of the development plan.

Mr. Loughlin: How does the hon. Member know?

Mr. Stratton Mills: That is the result of what we call prior consultation.

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member must not say things like that. The prerogative of selecting speakers in this House rests in the Chair.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Let me phrase it another way. If my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, she will, I hope, enlarge upon the idea of the five-year development plan. I hope that I have satisfied the procedural niceties in the mind of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin).
The essential idea of the joint committee of Ministers would be to put the ultimate responsibility of reducing unemployment upon the committee, its main object being not to accept the present situation but to make a positive contribution to solving Northern Ireland's economic problems.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: I should like, first, to associate myself with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and with the views of the hon. Member for Belfast, North, (Mr. Stratton Mills) concerning the disappointment which arises from the report of the Joint Working Party. It may well be that to appoint a committee of civil servants to examine a report upon such a serious industrial situation was unwise. I should like to have seen the appointment of a committee of industrial experts who by experience and training were capable of giving both a short-term and a long-term assessment of the problem.
The problem is one of ever-increasing unemployment of both skilled and unskilled workers, particularly in shipbuilding and the aircraft industry. The Report draws attention to the fall-off of employment in agriculture, shipbuilding, aircraft and textiles when employment

in these industries in Britain is declining. The greater percentage of unemployment in Northern Ireland may be due to a number factors which are not common to Britain.
The suggestion in the Report that the encouragement of migration should be regarded as one of a composite mixture of measures to alleviate unemployment is one which, I trust, nobody, on either side of the House, will accept. The workers of Northern Ireland, like those of the remainder of Britain, do not look kindly upon being uprooted from their homes, their friends and their country. They feel that work could be found if a real effort were made. The responsibility rests clearly upon the Government, and it is a responsibility which they have evaded far too long.
The longer the delay in arresting the growth of unemployment, the more difficult will the problem become. Unemployment increases other problems. The fall in purchasing power creates depression in a wide sector of industry. The Government are allowing unemployment to grow, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout Britain. Unless immediate steps are taken to reverse the trend, industrial decline will result and it will become beyond our control.
The prosperity of Northern Ireland is bound up with that of Britain. The two cannot be separated. We are making a drive for greater productivity. We cannot allow men with skill and training to waste away in unemployment. The success of our economy depends upon the full use of our man power. The battle for success during the coming years will be won in the workshops of the nation. I urge the Government to act without undue delay.
I believe that on both sides of the House there is a sincere feeling that the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland and elsewhere should be tackled severely by the Government. There is nothing in any action which the Government have taken, either in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the British Isles, which convinces me that they realise the seriousness of the problem. The older hon. Members of the House can cast their minds back to the periods of great unemployment. We hope and pray that for the sake of the future prosperity of


the nation, for the sake of the happiness and well-being of our young people, that will never recur.
If we are to prevent the continued growth of unemployment and its development into a greater unemployment problem, we can do so only by planning the economy of the nation. I know that arguments have been flung from one side of the Chamber to the other about the term "planning". No business, whether it is a great State enterprise or a private concern, could possibly have been successful without a measure of wide and extensive planning. The Government must realise that unless we plan the nation's economy, we shall not prevent periods of unemployment and, possibly, greater disaster for the nation.
We talk nowadays about our entry into the Common Market. We are told that there will be greater opportunities for competition. We have been told that British industry must roll up its sleeves to face competition from the Common Market countries. We shall not be successful in this competition if we allow the men who have the skill and capacity to produce what Britain needs to rot away on the unemployment heap.
We must consider this as a most urgent matter for the nation. The economy should be planned in such a way, in co-operation with all sectors, that we ensure the continued prosperity of the nation and wipe out the unemployment spots in Northern Ireland and in every pant of the British Isles. Let us plan so that prosperity may be brought to every individual in the country. It is our duty to do so and by so doing we shall achieve something which will enable our country to be even greater in the future. We have set an example to the world by our industries and our social services. Even our Parliamentary system has proved an example of haw to deal with the common needs of society and to extend the fellowship of man. We have had our differences politically, but, even so, we have worked together for the development of our local government and national government systems.
The same spirit of co-operation and sacrifice must today permeate the Government and industry in order that we may ensure that this problem of unem-

ployment is nothing more than a passing phase in the industrial life of the country. Let us face our future with determination and ensure that our country shall be greater than ever before.

7.12 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: The opportunity we have had of discussing this very important Report is one which all who have a real and genuine interest in and a long-term determination to promote the welfare of Northern Ireland will welcome very much. The Report has been useful in bringing the facts regarding Northern Ireland, the hard facts of Northern Ireland's economic problems, before the notice of the public both here and in Ulster. Nevertheless, it is true to say that our feeling is one of disappointment because no answer is offered to the problems facing Ulster.
This Report is a very realistic survey of those problems, but it is not a practical study of the means of solving them. Thus we are very disappointed and we shall have to find some other solution rather than relying solely on the Report. I suppose that this was bound to be the sort of Report which would result from a work study undertaken by civil servants. The majority of the suggestions are accepted by a minority of the working party but were not accepted in general, and I believe that we have an opportunity to re-examine these matters to see whether they were rejected for political reasons rather than practical reasons.
The main snag about the Working Party is that its Report has merely restated the known problems. It presents them clearly. The Working Party has taken a great deal of time—far too long in my opinion—in doing so. Great hopes were raised. We felt that it would provide answers to the problems which we had found impossible to solve ourselves. Unfortunately those hopes have been dashed by the content of the Report. It rejects practically all of the positive suggestions which were advanced and fails to suggest any real answers to the problems of underemployment. The Report has largely defined the limits of economic planning in Northern Ireland and is very much the "mixture as before".
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) referred to the word "planning" as if it were an answer to all problems. He talked about the need for ideal industries in Northern Ireland. I believe that those who have made a long-term study of the problems of Northern Ireland, including the members of this Working Party, are not quite so utterly stupid as would appear from the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. Planning, as such, is not a word sacred to any one type of philosophy nor to any particular political party. Nor, indeed, to any one report or group of persons. Nor is there anything new in the idea of finding the right industries for Northern Ireland or for many other areas. That idea is not the prerogative of one school of thought.
Over the years Northern Ireland has sought to attract the right kind of industry; to replace the traditional industries, which declined because of a change in the pattern of industry, and to find jobs for those who had worked in the traditional industries by attracting new industries which would provide employment without creating problems in material terms. A number of industrialists have investigated the possibility of coming to Northern Ireland and whether it was practicable to set up a factory there. They sometimes have decided that the cost of transferring materials would be too great. The idea of a more or less unlimited amount of good quality labour attracted them. But against that they had to balance transport costs. So I would remind the House that when we are talking about planning, and when we discuss Northern Ireland from the point of view of the provision of ideal industries, there must still be found an ideal solution to the problem presented by the presence of the Irish Sea and the difficulties of transport.
This was not a matter to be discussed especially by the Working Party. There is the House Committee which is studying it. But we must remember this problem if we want to be useful and helpful in our discussions regarding Northern Ireland; I have no doubt that everyone wishes to be that, and in their efforts to solve the problem of underemployment in Northern Ireland, they will refuse to accept this Report as the final answer, as I do.
As I said, the Report largely defines the economic planning limitations in Northern Ireland and prescribes a mixture which is very much as before. I am sure that most of us will not accept it as the final answer. As the House will know, one of the main proposals was that there should be a 10s. subsidy for mortgages in new industries, but this was not accepted by the majority of the Working Party because, I believe, it was felt that a subsidy would not last long under the Treaty of Rome.
I believe that this Report has been drawn up with the possibility of our entry into the Common Market in mind, and as the long-term method of solving our problem, or at least of putting it fairly into perspective. I can understand that a 10s. subsidy may not be a real inducement to industry, but the extension of a forthcoming subsidy would at least help and certainly be an improvement for the industries concerned. The continuance of the 75 per cent. derating mentioned in the Report is obviously useful, but derating has its dangers and shortcomings as have all long-term continuous subsidies.
The most negative result of the Report is that apparently Sir Robert Hall and his colleagues expected us to accept a definite level of unemployment of up to 7 per cent. This we cannot and will not accept. We shall endeavour strenuously to reduce it by every means in our power, and we shall expect the full support of this House in that matter. I believe that we can effect a reduction. Many people are appalled at the thought that any party of responsible people should appear to accept this negative attitude. It means a man of 45 years or over—this is constantly happening—who is unskilled and who losses his job, has virtually no opportunity of regaining permanent employment. This is the situation which we are facing and which we have to overcome.
There is the permanent pressure created by the increasing population of young people growing up and leaving school who are looking for jobs. If there is any temporary recession and they lose their jobs they have little opportunity to get permanent employment again. This is a very difficult problem. I wish to make clear that I believe that the young people must have


a chance. We must give them the best start in life that we can without danger of the older people who have an equal right, and need, to have their own jobs secured.
There has been much negative discussion this afternoon. There has been much talk about what has not been done. I say enough of negative talk and enough of stressing the problem. The Hall Report stressed it thoroughly. We must now turn to the work which must be done to solve the problem in the light of what is said in the Report. Paragraphs 64 and 65 of the Report contain a very clear statement of the situation. Paragraph 65 says this:
There are strong political and social arguments in favour of aid to Northern Ireland. It is not for us to elaborate the political arguments.
This statement leave it open to us in the House to elaborate these arguments and find a satisfactory conclusion.
The social argument is that Northern Ireland has had, ever since the beginning of her existence as a separate political entity, a much higher rate of unemployment (and a lower income per head) than the rest of the United Kingdom. The political and social arguments are combined in the argument that the prime necessity is to put more men and women in the region to work or to keep them in work, and that Ulstermen should not be compelled to leave the region to find work.
I have quoted paragraph 65 first, but paragraph 64 is also very relevant. It deals with unemployment benefit and National Assistance grants. It says that the extra resources which are needed to put people to work should be outweighed by the value of the product of that work. This is an important aspect which I hope to develop later.
The suggestion contained in the Amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and other of my hon. Friends, which has not been called, has some merit. We must remember that in the past there has always been very close co-operation between the Government here and the Government at Stormont. There has never been any suggestion of a lack of co-operation at Ministerial level. However, the idea of a continuing and continuous committee is a modern one and is suitable to modern times. When Ministers come from Northern Ireland to discuss things

with Ministers here, it leads to renewed hope at home, perhaps to a raising of hopes that something new is in the wind. At times of local crisis it leads people to think that something urgent is being done. The rights and duties of each Government and the rights and duties of the public would be better served by a continuing committee which, if it had a small quorum, would be able to continue to discuss and consider matters affecting Northern Ireland in conjunction with the rest of the United Kingdom as and when they arose without any special meetings being convened. We must continue to suggest this until it is agreed to.
I know that the Government here and the Government at Stormont think that their lines of communication are very clear. This is not understood by the public. A great measure of confidence would be instilled in the people of Northern Ireland if a continuing committee could be set up and be seen to work regularly and steadily and not only when matters of urgent necessity arose.
One of the ideas brought forward by the Hall Committee might be implemented. I believe that there is considerable merit in the suggestion that there should be an economic advisory council. It is necessary for Governments to obtain the advice of people in industry, people at the working end of things. The Hall Report adjures the economic adviser to the Government of Northern Ireland to keep in close contact with both Governments and with what is going on in the economy of Northern Ireland. Although there is only a rather vague mention of an economic advisory council, the Hall Committee has brought it forward in a way which we cannot ignore.
If such an advisory economic committee were to be set up, with persons in industry on both sides of the water with knowledge of local problems in Northern Ireland and with knowledge of the general trends in the United Kingdom who could advise and keep in touch with the permanent joint committee of Ministers of both Governments, we should be in a much better position to anticipate industrial trends, to anticipate needs for development, and to find an opportunity to offer Northern Ireland's well worth while possibilities to industrialists when they are likely to need to expand.
This could also be used in the other sense, to find out how far Northern Ireland can expand at a certain time, at a certain rate, and with certain skilled labour. The development of these two co-ordinating bodies would do much to solve our problems. The word "planning", which does not belong to any party or to any particular philosophy, can be used in this context without it being a dirty word either from our side of the House or from the opposite side of the House. I hope that the word "planning" will be considered only in a relevant sense.
We must remember that the United Kingdom needs to increase her overall production by at least 4 per cent. This will not be easily achieved. We shall have to struggle for it. In our tight economy we shall have to work very hard for it. If the present standard of living in the whole of the United Kingdom is to be maintained and developed, we must have this increased production. A Government inquiry will be examining the dangers and difficulties involved in certain parts of the United Kingdom losing their labour potential because it is all congregating in the Midlands and the Southern regions of England. What we are trying to get at is how to alternate this and get the work to go out rather than the people to gather in.
In Northern Ireland we have the space. We have the people. We have the intelligence. We have the will, which is perhaps most important of all. We can offer great help in this need to increase overall production. I must make it clear that we cannot do this in every single industry, because there are some industries where the proportion of the cost of transport and raw materials to labour makes it uneconomic. However, in many industries we can help. We must make it much better understood and known how determined we are to offer ourselves.
It must be remembered in this context that the rate of increase in production in Northern Ireland has been higher than the average in the rest of Great Britain over the past few years. Despite all our difficulties and problems, we have managed to achieve that. Our rate of production has increased more quickly than it has in the rest of the United Kingdom. This proves that we are determined and that our people are

determined and would be worthy employees of those who come to use the amenities of Northern Ireland for their industrial production. We must think again of what the committee of Ministers might be able to do.

Mr. John McCann: The hon. Lady has been dealing at length with a problem in which other parts of the country which have skilled labour but no work are interested. Perhaps the hon. Lady will develop the point. If industry will not go to Northern Ireland, what would she do to take it there?

Mrs. McLaughlin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. If he will wait a little longer he will find that I shall come to that point in due course.
I was about to say something more about the Committee of Ministers and how we think that the advice it could receive from the economic advisory council and from outside Government sources on both sides of industry would be helpful. There is no definite conclusion in the Hall Report, but paragraph 225 contains these words:
The provision of general economic advice to the Government of Northern Ireland is important … The establishment of an economic advisory body of persons drawn from outside the Government service should be considered.
When it is being considered we want to know what more it can do than what I have already mentioned.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) asked what we would do if industry will not come to Northern Ireland of its own accord. I ask him in turn what anybody can do or what any political party or Government can do if an industry is not in a state of healthy expansion. If industry is expanding, it must find the place and the means to expand. When industry is expanding it is entirely dependent on the type of industry whether it can go further afield or whether it cannot afford the transport costs.
We are slightly handicapped today because we have not yet received the Report from the House Committee which is studying the transport problems and particularly those affecting Northern Ireland across the Channel Transport. If we had known the results we would


have been in an easier position today to discuss how best we might help to encourage industries to come to Northern Ireland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look again at this himself. We have had great success in attracting industry; in fact we have had enormous success. Do not let anyone say that we have not, because today we have such a wide variety in such a small area that I do not believe that any other part of the United Kingdom can match it.
We enjoy—that is the right word—the benefits of industries coming from America, Canada and Great Britain, all of which appear to be equally happy and all of which appear to be making a reasonably satisfactory profit and return out of their ventures in Northern Ireland. We have one or two snags, but, as with everything else, one hears about the ones that go wrong and does not hear about the hundreds that are successful. If anyone wants to know about the success of industry in Northern Ireland, I recommend him to look at the Chamber of Commerce Reports and also the Northern Ireland Government Reports to see how many jobs have been provided, how many new industries are there and how many industries are waiting what may be the advent of this country into the Common Market which will, without doubt, give us an impetus in Northern Ireland by increasing the number of industries which will settle there in order to be ready to meet the tremendous developing market in Europe.
We know that at the present time our own problem in Northern Ireland cannot be allowed a set back and cannot wait or be bypassed. We cannot afford that, and we do not accept that the Hall Committee's Report is the final answer to all this. So we have an urgent need. Taking into account that overall Britain has an expanding economy and that we must help in this and push on, then we must look to see how in the next few months or years we can attract further industries.
It is suggested in the Hall Report that we should not have any larger capital investment grant, and no larger once-for-all grants to new industries and so on. It was suggested that we should not have a greatly increased programme

in public works. In fact the only thing that it suggested that we should develop was housing, and I am sure that every hon. Member will agree with me that housing is the most human of all problems. Following the Report this will be tackled in Northern Ireland just as fast and adequately as it can be. I believe that this Report and the people who have studied to produce it have dealt with this problem from a very narrow angle; in fact they were wearing blinkers, and this narrowed down their ideas to such an extent that it has not been finally successful.
We have this potential and the determination to meet our problems, and there are certain things that we must do. The idea of increasing public works is something about which the Chamber of Commerce Report comments as—
not being likely to bring about development of additional exports.
I believe that I should not be turned down simply because it is not agreed to in the Report of the Committee. I also quote from the Chamber of Commerce Editorial on the Hall Committee—
The recommendations of the Toothill Report having been turned down—
this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North earlier—
it clearly believes"—
this is in fact the Government—
that enough has been done to meet the social needs of areas suffering from economic difficulties and that there should be no further interference with economic forces which are tending to concentrate a particular population in a prosperous belt stretching from London to the Midlands.
At the same time, we know from this comment that the Chamber of Commerce is dealing with it from a revenue-producing angle. It believes that much more should be done in terms of public works and suggests that this should be looked at again in the context of business life and in the light of how much is paid out in unemployment benefit to people who have no work to do and who would gladly do the work if it were there.
So we want to know why this is turned down. Admittedly we have the problem of skilled men, and I must quote this in passing because it is relevant and is used


in the argument in the Hall Committee's Report:
When the big pay-off in the Belfast shipyards took place it was a matter of great concern to us all. It was interesting to note that it was the semi-skilled and unskilled men who could not get employment generally in other places.
I am only quoting one particular skilled trade which I know personally. I do not know of any joiners paid off in the shipyards in a considerable number who have not been absorbed by the increasing amount of work done in the building industry, and so we know that if we can expand public works in different directions we may be able to take up many more of the unskilled and semi-skilled men who today have lost their jobs and have no hope of regaining them unless we increase again the traditional industries, which seems unlikely at the moment, or find them some alternative method of employment.
The need for public works is very obvious. I know that it will not produce profits and the same development in the economy that new industries will do, but at the same time in Northern Ireland it could create a climate of opinion and of thought and an attitude of bringing people out of this feeling of, "I have lost my job, I have no future." It seems absolutely crazy that in this day and age we should pay about £3,600,000 in the year 1961–62, which with the increased number of population coming on to the unemployment lists and the increased benefits rates, will be increased by £1 million in the current year. It seems crazy that we should allow people to be in misery today doing nothing when we can, through public works, do a great deal to take up the slack of unemployment and give these men a job and at the same time develop a situation whereby there are more attractions to industries which is the long continuing answer to the problem—industries which will bring with them all the benefits of full employment, good work and products well-turned out produced in a healthy community.
On top of this the housing drive already mentioned has been accepted by the Government on the recommendation of the Hall Committee as an essential part of the economy—

Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that the hon. Lady raised this point. I think that the

position of public works is very important to Northern Ireland. Would she not also agree that one of the effects of public works development or expansion is a snowballing effect, as was found in the United States of America in the Roosevelt New Deal period?

Mrs. McLaughlin: I have not got to the stage of dealing with this in terms of Northern Ireland, but I do not think that it can have quite that effect. We need in Northern Ireland considerably more road development. We could do with more tourists development, and I know that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Currie) will be developing this if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye. But, in terms of amenities and resources it is impossible at the moment in a small community like ours to produce many extra amenities purely on what could be drawn from the rates, because it would put too much cost on local authorities. This can be looked at in terms of employment as well as in terms of amenity developments. We need more roads because railways are being closed and we are having fewer lines than before. We need to develop the rural areas considerably more. If we could do a lot of this development and could look at it as an overall picture, I believe that much could be done, but the Northern Ireland Government have very limited powers in this matter. If we had our Ministerial Joint Committee and if it was possible to do some long-term planning, I believe that this need not be held up, discussion could go on, and it could be taken up fairly quickly. This would not be an enormous problem and it would take up many of the hundreds of people who are standing about our streets and countryside. Here again we have to consider how much this will help to attract industries to this part of the United Kingdom.
It is always interesting to note that people go where others have been, and even industry is comparatively sheep-like in that respect. Industry wants a satisfactory outlet, and a place where it can get labour, where costs are reasonably satisfactory, and which is free from the usual type of difficulties of strikes, hold-ups, bottlenecks in transport, and so on. That means that we have everything to offer in this way, and very little to hold us back, but we always appear


to be asking and begging people to come to us whereas, with a programme of public works and the creation of this tremendous drive we could create a climate which would attract more people than have come already—

Mr. Hector Hughes: I have the greatest sympathy with the Northern Ireland problems that the hon. Lady is presenting to the House, but would not the solution appear to lie in the appointment of one of the Northern Ireland Members as President of the Board of Trade for Northern Ireland in order to look after Northern Ireland's problems exclusively?

Mrs. McLaughlin: The hon. and learned Member is quite entitled to that view, but I believe that having, as we have today, a very much wider range of Ministers, and having the whole Government interested, we do better than if we had only one Minister with a narrower responsibility.
In 1951 our unemployment rate was 6·1 per cent. Today, with a very much larger working population, we have many more in employment than ever before. In October, for instance, we had 2,284 fewer unemployed than in September, and this year we have 4,299 fewer on our unemployment register than at the same period last year. This we have achieved despite all the "dismal johnnies" and difficulties—

Mr. John McCann: But what is the percentage? We know that in 1952 it went up to 10 per cent., and it has varied between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. since. The last level was 7½ per cent.

Mrs. McLaughlin: If the hon. Member is really interested, the present figure is 6·4 per cent., but I do not think that percentage points are relevant in tackling this problem. To get the figure reduced to the national level is our object, not arguing points of percentage. Ten years ago, the figure was 6·1 per cent., with a very much smaller number both of those on the unemployment register and of those coming on the register from the upsurge of young people in an increasing population. We have increased the number of jobs and decreased the amount of unemployment. We need more jobs, but what we have done has

been accomplished m the face of all the difficulties of the shipbuilding and aircraft industries.
This public works programme would considerably help to reduce the unemployment figure, but it will not reduce the profitable economy that we must aim for, and achieve. Much could be done to help towards this economy. We could have package deals with Wales in respect of transport and touring holidays, selling this idea in the United States and elsewhere before people ever leave their homes. We can also do more in regard to air freight. At present a party of two and a small car can travel to and from the south of England to the Continent for about £21. If we could do something like that, it would do much for our economy. We hope that the House Committee can help us to find a way to solve the problems presented by the Irish Sea.
There is a great deal of merit in regional co-operation. As we all know only too well, there are many other areas in the United Kingdom that need to solve their unemployment problem, too. Our problem is to get more jobs available, and to provide a climate for industry and development rather than to move people to jobs in what is already an overcrowded area, which not only does not solve the problem as a whole, but creates more problems.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which has this unusual and specialist problem, which the Irish Sea presents, of being separated in a sense entirely different from Scotland, Wales and all the other areas needing special attention, so we have to harp on it more often than people might wish, because it is so important. In spite of the co-ordinated programme in the United Kingdom, in which we should like to join, we still need individual and specialist treatment.
I ask the Government how, if we cannot solve the problems of Northern Ireland, will we cope with the enormous problem of entry into the Common Market and taking into it with us numbers of people who are not yet employed but who may—we hope will—be employed when the new development takes place. We must tackle this problem before entering the Common Market, so that we do not carry with us unemployed persons who want work but


have a fully-equipped economy to tackle this tremendous challenge, which should be so worth while.
Training schemes for the young will help us. Day-release schemes, and training schemes such as those undertaken already by the aircraft industry, are very important, but we then come up against a big difficulty. I represent an entirely industrial constituency, and I know and recognise that the trade union situation is difficult. Nevertheless, men say to me, "I am skilled, I have done my apprenticeship to a certain trade, but as I cannot get a union card I cannot get a job as a skilled man". The trade union has to protect the men it already has, and refuses other men their cards.
The unions, therefore, are naturally cagey about the number of apprenticeships offered, and we must tackle that situation without there being any sense of one side of industry against another. That is a major problem, and one that really worries us. If we are to have more training schemes, we must be certain that the chaps who are trained will get the opportunity of having their training recognised.
I can see the union point of view—that if they recognise too many men there will be too many of their members looking for the jobs, but if we are to increase our skilled labour from the young we must accept that as something to be solved—

Mr. Richard Marsh: Could the hon. Lady give some indication of what trade she is now talking about, because this is something I have never heard of?

Mrs. McLaughlin: I quote such people as electricians, and others that I know of in my constituency. I do not say this in any sense of complaint, but state it as something that must be dealt with. We know that this is one of the major matters which will prevent us developing training schemes, and we must have sensible agreement on this. Our industrial output is increasing rapidly, and if it is to continue increasing rapidly we must train more young people by making apprenticeships more widely available to them.
Industrialists say that they are hamstrung because they are only allowed to take so many apprentices. That is a

matter for negotiation, and something which might be solved more rapidly by the work of this advisory economic council and this co-ordinating committee of Ministers than in any other way. Those people would be able to get all the necessary information from all sides in industry and, in particular, from the trade unions.
I have already quoted our present unemployment rate of 6·4 per cent, and I shall not go into the details again. What we have done has been achieved against a background of great difficulty, and only the combined determination of Government and people has enabled us to keep the figure as low.
Self-help is important. The Hall Committee has virtually thrown the whole problem back again. It has said that Northern Ireland must pull itself up by its bootstraps, and continue to have the aids to industry that are already available. It is true that the Committee puts forward one or two minor suggestions, but we must remember that, with a net annual increase of working population of about 6,000, we cannot pull ourselves up by our bootstraps alone. That is not possible. We need more industry and, in particular, more exporting industry because we cannot afford to absorb in our area the output of all the new industry we require. Despite all the aids which have been mentioned before which equal about 9 per cent. of the gross expenditure on all supply services and on which the Working Party did not recommend any increase, we will still have a big battle to fight if we are to do something worthwhile.
We hope that the House Committee will show us where we can do something to help. But we need more co-ordination between United Kingdom policy generally and that for Northern Ireland so that we can get on more easily with the job. We need more industry on our doorstep. There is no time to waste, and all the things that have been suggested, such as more processed foods and the using of more local products to produce goods of a high quality, are all extremely interesting and important, but sporadic efforts just will not do.
Thus we need the Economic Advisory Council and the Joint Ministerial Committee, and we need them quickly. The


five-year plan as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North is designed merely to draw attention to the fact that one cannot do something helpful and say "That is all." One must do more and, when that is done, do still more in an effort to reach a final aim. To this aim I believe that all the local authorities in Northern Ireland should be prepared to produce their plans and needs for the next five years so that they can be discussed in Northern Ireland and in London. After such discussions, it can be seen how much is feasible, how much can be done. In all this we must always remember that there are too many unemployed doing nothing in Northern Ireland and that this is not only bad for the people concerned but it is costing the country a tremendous amount of money.
We need more investment in Northern Ireland. At present we have a few large public companies and a very large number of limited companies whose capital has not increased since the war in the way necessary to produce adequate financing to meet increased costs and other forms of development. This is all stated in the Report of the Joint Working Party, so I need not detail the points but mention paragraph 191 as being of great importance in considering development.
Please today do not let us fall into the morass of misery and declare that nothing can be done. Never let it be said that the civil servants could produce a report that we were prepared to accept as final and to let the matter rest there. We should be able to deal with these problems, for while they produced a report according to their terms of reference, those terms meant that they had blinkers on while they were going into these important matters affecting Northern Ireland's future.
Let us say that we are not satisfied with the present position but agree that much has been done within certain limits. Let us continue to stress the fact that we are determined that Northern Ireland's economy shall be extended and the rate of unemployment reduced until in the next few years, Northern Ireland will have a level of unemployment similar to that of the United Kingdom and then we shall try to pass that level and, eventually, beat it.

7.54 p.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). I found her speech moving and sensible, but I cannot for the life of me think why she is going to vote with hon. Members opposite. Surely she and her hon. Friends realise that as long as they go on voting for the present Government everything they say will be completely meaningless and useless. I can only hope that one day the hon. Lady will be a Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade so that she will be able to discover why so many of her suggestions, admirable though they are, never come from the Government.
I welcome the debate because it reveals the complete failure of the Government to tackle the regional problem in this country. There has been a tendency in the past for areas of high unemployment to regard each other as competitors for the limited largesse of the Government, each concession to one area being regarded as a setback for all the others. I detect nothing of this attitude among my hon. Friends in the Labour Opposition in the Northern Ireland Parliament. They are the representatives of the areas of the most persistent unemployment in the United Kingdom and they represent the spearhead of the attack on the Government for their failure to tackle these regional problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said that Northern Ireland was unique in that its problems could not be tackled by treating the area as a development district, while in the remainder of the United Kingdom the development districts provided a satisfactory method. This is certainly not true in the North-East or in Scotland. Here large areas—areas equal to Northern Ireland—are all scheduled as development districts and are all suffering from the same problems as Northern Ireland.
The Report we are debating came from a working party of officials who had themselves been dealing with policy towards Northern Ireland. It is not surprising, therefore, that they found that the tenor of their conclusions was that the Government had been working on the right lines. What is surprising is the


confusion apparent in their argument. The hon. Member for Belfast, West described it as a realistic analysis and survey. I do not agree with her. In paragraph 15 it is said that net output per operative in 1949 in Northern Ireland was 73 per cent. of that in the rest of the United Kingdom as a whole, and 68 per cent. in 1957.
In the next paragraph this is identified with lower productivity. It implies a certain clodhoppishness on the part of the Irish worker which I find as offensive as it is unjustified. However, this seems to be the attitude of the Government towards all workers in areas of high unemployment; an assumption which seems to lie at the root of their policy towards these areas—an assumption by which they think that they are dealing in terms of charity and not economics. The workers are "zealous"—yes, "disciplined"—yes, but less productive and, by implication, stupid. This seems to be the view of the Government towards workers in all areas of high unemployment. This would matter less if it were not for the sort of impression the Government make on many industrialists who would consider going to Northern Ireland.
There is no evidence whatever for this point of view towards the Irish worker. Indeed, the very authorities quoted by the Report specifically rebut this view. After 25 pages of analysis, Isles and Cuthbert observed:
… comparative values of net output per worker are not a measure of relative productivity.
They pointed out that the distribution of workers between industries, the capital employed in the different industries and the different buying and selling arrangements and prices all tended to reduce net output per worker in Northern Ireland.
Dennison made the same point. Isles and Cuthbert gave several estimates of output per worker, but the Report gives the lowest figure and draws a moral implication from it. I hope that the Minister will dissociate himself from this view of the workers of Northern Ireland, which is so much at variance with the experience of industrialists who know there is parity between the workers of Northern Ireland and those of the rest of England in this respect.
Paragraph 28 of the Report attempts to estimate how suitable the unemployed are for the kind of work that is or might be available. The hon. Member for Belfast, West mentioned that the Report said that the 26,000 unemployed under the age of 45 together with the 1,500 unemployed craftsmen over the age of 45 gave an indication of those who might be suitable for training for new industries.
But what is to happen to the 12,000 over 45? Surely it is borne out by experience of persistent unemployment in other areas that it is the old, the blind, the halt and the lame who lose their jobs and stay unemployed. They are pushed out of the bottom of the labour market and are made more unemployable. Also when new industries are introduced it is not these people who are employed by the new firms. On the contrary, the new industries suck the more able out of other employment leaving room in the economy as a whole for the less able.
The Report itself, in paragraph 26, remarks that
… there is a tendency for men who have left to take up employment in Great Britain to return if jobs become available in Northern Ireland.
Why, then, lower the sights for jobs for Northern Ireland? The inconsistency into which the writers of this Report have been led by their pseudo-moral judgments, reflecting the outlook of this Government, shows again in their discussion of possible measures of aid. They say that
… a subsidy for increases in employment would tend to attract less desirable types of firm which would invest little but would plan to operate for only so long as they received the labour subsidy.
Perhaps so, but earlier, in paragraph 69, the Report says that:
… new industries should preferably be labour-intensive rather than capital-intensive.
Then there is this final sell-out:
It would be unrealistic to expect that Northern Ireland can in the foreseeable future reduce unemployment to as low a level as that in Great Britain.
What good can come of such defeatism? The Government should not have sheltered behind the appointment of such a committee. Ministerial responsibility has been brushed aside and the Report bears the imprint of officials of the Treasury, the Home Office, the Board


of Trade, the Ministeries of Labour, Agriculture, Transport and Power. I find this Report a shocking indictment of the state into which the Government have allowed the public service to sink. When the party on this side of the House forms a Government we shall expect higher standards of competence, and I am sure that the public service will provide them.
In Northern Ireland we do not face a temporary failure of Government policy which will be put right when expansion resumes. The hon. Lady suggested that when expansion gets going again we can have a direction of industry policy which will send industry to Northern Ireland. Present policy has no more than kept pace with the rising demand for jobs, and the Report holds out no prospect of a decrease in the proportion of the unemployed. The situation has been like this through boom and recession for many years, and the continuation of present measures will just not be enough.
Let us first set the objective. Surely it is full employment and a level of prosperity equal to anything in Britain. Why not? Will the Home Secretary say what his objectives are in Northern Ireland? Dare the Government go to the polls anywhere in Britain and aim at less? Then let us ask what measures are needed to achieve the ends we seek. Everyone is unanimous in saying that new industries must develop in Northern Ireland. In spite of the slighting remarks made about what my hon. Friend the Member for Newton said about getting the right industries there, it is certainly necessary that the right industries should be developed.
Arbitrary action, whether by direction of industry or stepping up financial inducements to an even higher level, may well be ineffective if they are undertaken in ignorance. I am full of admiration for such works as the report by Cuthbert and Isles, but they are plainly struggling within a totally inadequate framework of national and regional statistics. It is, for example, absurd not to be able to follow the variation of capital per worker in different industries and different regions. But, more important, is the framework and the outlook within which information is presented.
Industry and Government need to be able to answer such questions as, Is it or is it not economic to move a production line for television sets from London to Belfast? Economic statistics are not there for us to philosophise about national aggregates which we can do nothing about. They are there to improve decision making, which is almost always a decision about a project in real terms affecting many aggregates.
I beg the Government to consider whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer may not be right, after all, when he says that the Treasury thinks too much in terms of financial totals and should sometimes consider the real resources available. It is true that until the Chancellor has licked the Government's statistical machine into shape we are all fumbling in the dark, but if we cannot prove ourselves right, the Government cannot prove us wrong.
The need for regional planning machinery has been mentioned. In the debate in the Northern Ireland Parliament the suggestion was made of planning machinery linked in a national framework with the N.E.D.C. Surely this is right, but has the Government's attitude been as forthcoming as it might have been? Has their attitude to the Toothill Report, for example, been forthcoming? Do the Northern Ireland Government, in saying that no such machine is necessary and that the local Government is in touch with the needs of the area, engender confidence in the ability of the Government to carry out the measures of planning that are needed? On the evidence of this Report they could not.
But regional and national planning machines on their own are not enough. Major decisions are taken on an industrial and not a regional basis. No real contact is now made between the Board of Trade, which is aware of the social problem, and industries, who are aware of the technical industrial problem, when it comes to a question of discussing industrial development certificates and the location of industry. There is no rapport beween the Board of Trade and industrialists.
The Government are right up to a point. There is a danger of destroying industry and enterprise by ill-informed


meddling with its location. But the conclusion is to get informed, and not to leave industry alone to choke in ignorance of its future. We need industry commissions, relatively small bodies of men expert in the affairs of that industry, men who are authoritative and respected in the industry, who would be responsible for all questions of investment and location and taxation and the manifold fields in which the Government now act in ignorance. These could all be dealt with by these commissions.
The industry commissions would provide strong and effective links between the regional councils and industry. In location of industry problems firms would find themselves dealing with commissions which knew their problems and their background rather better than the firms themselves. We should have these dual organisations of regional councils and industrial commissions providing a framework within which it would be possible to tackle the problems of Northern Ireland.
Let us look to the Northern Ireland situation for an example of what is happening now. We have the pathetic case of Shorts, and I am sorry that the Minister of Aviation is not here. There was a picture of him sitting in the cockpit of the Belfast aircraft, giving the thumbs-up sign. Is this the way to plan an aircraft industry? Hon. Members should ask the people in Shorts whether they have been offered any framework by the Ministry of Aviation within which they can forecast the need for air transport in the future, the need for different sizes of package and different lengths of haul. They are left entirely on their own to argue their case in ignorance of the Government's outlook. Is this an effective basis for industrial expansion? It has cost Belfast very dear.
Organisational machinery, in itself, is certainly not enough, and the dual organisation would need tools, as the Government now need tools. The question of regulators was raised in the Report, and rejected. This question of the employment subsidy, or, putting it a different way, the regional variation of employers' National Insurance contributions, should be considered closely. The Government got its pay-roll tax wrong, but can they not look at some of

the good ideas in it? It is not a short-term regulator, but why not impose differential increases in employers' contributions to discourage employers increasing employment in the South, by comparison with the North and Northern Ireland?
Again, why not have Purchase Tax regulators which are specific to the productions of particular areas? The Chancellor of the Exchequer was arguing this case for the motor car industry when he said that a mammoth reduction of Purchase Tax would help employment in Merseyside and Scotland, but he omitted to point out that of the 150,000 extra jobs which the Purchase Tax reduction might produce only 20,000 jobs could possibly be created on Merseyside and in Scotland, and that the other 130,000 would be created in London, Birmingham, Coventry and Oxford, where the total of the unemployment today in all those cities is only 50,000. Therefore, there would be only 50,000 people available to fill 130,000 jobs.
The Chancellor accepts the principle of specific area and industry Purchase Tax regulators, but will not use them effectively. Regulators—general, broad, countrywide or even area-wide—are not specific and effective enough. We need specific projects. This is always dismissed from the other side of the House with the glib remark that direction of industry implies direction of labour. Direction of whose labour? Presumably of the management, because they would be the people who would have to go to Northern Ireland to start up a new factory. I could name a dozen managers who have been barn, bred and educated in Northern Ireland, but who have been unable to get jobs there and who are longing to get back. Certainly, there are difficulties in a crude direction of industry policy—difficulties in the selection of industries and so on.
But the Government have a tool which they have not used and which has not yet been suggested. The most precious thing which they can give to an industrialist is knowledge of the future, which is worth a great deal mare than even a very large subsidy. Why not offer Government guarantees of sales? Let them consider the tremendous surge of


spending which will came with the introduction of colour television. Let them announce, first, that Government factories to make colour television sets are to be located, say, in Northern Ireland, and that the sets are to be sold at much lower rates of Purchase Tax than any commercially manufactured sets. Then, let them offer the industry the right to go to Northern Ireland and operate in the Factories there themselves. Industry would go smartly enough, and I do not think that even the Government would say that this was being particularly tougher than they were in the case of the amalgamations in the aircraft industry. This is the way the Government determine the shape of economic development, whether in the authorisation of colour television or in the placing of aircraft orders.
Why do we not do it? The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West mentioned public works, and I am sure that she is right. These are needed urgently, but the people in Northern Ireland must remember that terrible wall round the reservoir in Silent Valley in the Mountains of Mourne, built by the unemployed in the twenties and thirties—a useless monument to the mismanagement of those years. Let us make sure that the public works that are undertaken are to create genuine expansion. But we cannot be sure of that, unless we have this much more fluent framework to regulate the relations between Government and industry.
This idea of a Standing Committee of Ministers is not good enough. Why do Ministers appoint Committees of civil servants? It is because they have not the time or experience to deal with problems at the level of technical expertise which is required. It needs an enormous development of the planning machinery which the Government have now begun to set up. When the "Neddy" Report comes out at the end of the year it will become obvious that the Government will not have the means by which to implement that Report. I hope that the first step they will take is to set up the machinery needed to tackle the vast human problem in regional development such as that in Northern Ireland.

Mrs. McLaughlin: With regard to what the hon. Gentleman has said con-

cerning the wall round the Silent Valley, will he say whether he refers to the wall built at the time of the potato famine? If so, it is not relevant in the context of this discussion. Or is he referring to some wall which we do not know about? Any wall built round the Silent Valley was very necessary for containing water for the City of Belfast and other places, and was not built for any useless purpose. Further, and this is relevant to his comments earlier on, will he say why it is that during the period when his party was in power they did not succeed in reducing unemployment in Northern Ireland, which we all know is such a problem? Why was it not achieved then?

Dr. Bray: With respect, we did not have the planning machinery we needed then, because we did not have the outlook in industry to fit in with the planning.

Mrs. McLaughlin: But there was planning of the economy under the Government of the hon. Gentleman's party.

Dr. Bray: With great respect, the whole outlook of industry is the essential factor in this. When I was discussing this framework of organisation with a distinguished economist, on whom the Government themselves have relied very heavily for advice, he commented that there just was not the level of expertise in industry available to co-operate with such an attempt, that there were not people in industry who could take a wide view of their problems. When I asked why he said, "Because they do not join in discussions at Government level." I share the view that these may be the kind of people the Government bring to these problems, but this is not the outlook of modern industry who feel it is a necessity to plan and co-operate in the solution of social problems.

Mrs. McLaughlin: What about the wall?

Dr. Bray: The wall was built in the 'twenties.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: While it is rather difficult to comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), it


appeared that he had taken this opportunity of a Northern Ireland debate to give us a lecture on orthodox Socialist thinking. He obviously has some knowledge of Northern Ireland, but some of his remarks were not complimentary to Northern Ireland feeling. At any rate, he has taken the trouble to read the Report.
I should like to make one comment on one of the hon. Member's points, though there are a number on which I should like to argue with him on another occasion. I should like to ask him whether he thinks that if we suddenly and completely arbitrarily announced substantial reductions of Purchase Tax on colour television sets manufactured in Northern Ireland, we should not provide just those gimcrack sorts of industries which the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) was criticising? Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that, if there were a special tax provision for colour television sets produced in Northern Ireland, this would be of any lasting value? How long would such colour television sets continue to be produced in Northern Ireland at a particularly high level?

Dr. Bray: The hon. Gentleman has a peculiar ignorance of the rate at which industry changes today. No industry is static for more than seven years, least of all the industries which have had capital grants from the Northern Ireland Government and which are alleged to have plants which will operate indefinitely. This is just not true. Therefore, one has continually to tackle these problems. Certainly, the manufacture of colour television sets would take care of the problem for only a limited period. This is true of capital investment in Terylene, the Chemstrand plant, and so on.

Mr. Clark: I take the hon. Gentleman's paint when he says that industry changes. I could not agree more. There is definitely considerable reason for having capital-intensive industries which, broadly speaking, will not be closed down when times change half so readily as the labour-intensive industries which it has been suggested we ought to have.
I compliment the hon. Gentleman because, as I have said, he has read the Report. At times, as I listened to the

other speeches from the benches opposite, I thought of that good old Northern Ireland phrase which is heard when someone says something particularly obvious and rather lacking in erudition—"Ah, what are ye talking about?". Quite frankly, when I heard the suggestion that we ought to look for labour-intensive industries, or that we ought to look to things which did not have much weight so that they could be transported cheaply, I thought of that Northern Ireland phrase. These things have been thought of before. The contribution of the hon. Member for Newton, who opened the debate for the Opposition, amounted to just about nil, apart from its length in taking up the time of the House. However, I must got on and he reasonably brief because there are others who wish to speak.
Everyone has spoken about the disappointment which the Report has produced. It is not exactly a Report to cheer anyone up, but I feel that the disappointment comes partly from mistakes on both sides. All of us were concerned about the delays in publishing the Report. We wanted a good Report. The newspapers kept egging people on to think that the Report would help us and would produce answers. We all began to expect a Report which would solve some of our problems overnight. We were rather stupid about it. We should have known that a group of civil servants would not produce a revolutionary document. We should have known very well that there are no universal panaceas.
There were mistakes on the other side, also. A working party of civil servants is competent to judge somethings, but not competent to judge others. There is no doubt that the members of the Hall Working Party, when given this very large task, were rather tempted to look about them and comment on nearly everything in sight. I think that their remarks about hotel facilities and air travel facilities to Northern Ireland look as though they were based solely on a three-day visit which the members made. They certainly have very little relevance and carry no weight at all. Just what the competence of the members of the Working Party was to comment in the way, I do not know. They argued purely from negative premises. Their remarks


about agriculture are so obvious that they are hardly true. Their remarks on several other subjects on which they are not particularly competent to judge hardly merit reading.
However, because those remarks are made often in short paragraphs, which are easily read, people tend to read them first and comment on them. Of course, the Working Party's incredible remark about emigration was certain to cause a stir in the newspapers. Many people never read the Reports themselves, but only newspaper accounts of them. How could the Working Party really think that a social survey was necessary to decide why Northern Ireland men do not want to emigrate? But if one puts those things aside and forgets one's hopes—very false hopes they were, before the Report came out—one realises that the Report is, on the whole, very much what one could have hoped for. There may the fallacies in the argument. Economists can usually pick a fallacy in almost any argument by another economist. But, on the whole, we have a fairly closely reasoned argument set out in what is, in my opinion, an extremely well documented Report. The way some of the figures are collected, examined and set out is of considerable assistance to people who have never bothered to study Northern Ireland before.

Dr. Bray: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that it was necessary for the Government to appoint yet another fact-finding body when such excellent studies already existed?

Mr. Clark: I am sorry that the Report was so long in being published, but I certainly do not say that the job which has been done was useless. I do not say of this Working Party's efforts, as can be said so often of the work of commissions and committees, that all other progress in Northern Ireland stopped while it was sitting. In fact, considerable progress has been made during the last two years in tackling unemployment in Northern Ireland.
The Report is well documented. It is a Civil Service appraisal of Government methods of helping the economy. What the Opposition do not like, of course, is that this appraisal of ways and

means endorses, on the whole, the policy of the Northern Ireland Government. Although it may be said that some of the civil servants came from Northern Ireland, they did not all do so. Sir Robert Hall himself has not a Right-wing or Ulster Unionist background.
Furthermore—here I disagree with several of my colleagues—I think that the note is not entirely pessimistic. From a reading of the recommendations, and particularly the argument about the 10s. per week wage subsidy, it is quite obvious that the majority opinion of the Working Party was that a measure of this sort, which might very well distort the economy for a very long period, was not justified because the trouble it might cause in later days would not be justified by the need before us today. It is clear to me that the economic problems of Northern Ireland are not quite as had and everlasting as they are sometimes made out to be. I am content that, if we continue working along current Lines with a little more imagination, we shall solve our problems.
We have here, I suggest, a valuable Report and a not entirely depressing one. However, it does not take us very far. Its recommendations are Civil Service recommendations which can be implemented quite quickly. I suggest that the Report can act as a valuable beginning rather than as an end. We must consider where we can go from here. This is the reason why I put my name to the Amendment which has not been called. I believe that we must think of much closer and more continuous consultation between Westminster and Stormont. I should like there to be regular meetings alternately in Belfast and in London at which the principal Ministers concerned are always present, but at which Ministers representing every Department on both sides of the Irish Sea are represented from time to time.
One of the troubles has been that meetings between Stormont and Westminster have too often taken place in an atmosphere of crisis, when emergency action was called for. Far too often, at these meetings only crisis and emergency were discussed. Very seldom has there been opportunity to discuss the probably less urgent but not necessarily less important matters which could go a long way towards solving the problems of Northern


Ireland. I should like to see regular meetings, with the smallest possible headlines in the newspapers, at which the maximum amount of work can be done.
Another point to which I hope my right hon. Friend will reply is this. I should like the, attention of the National Economic Development Council to be directed to Northern Ireland's problems. Since we make up only one-fortieth of the United Kingdom, it is probably too much to suggest that there should be two Northern Ireland representatives on the Council, but I feel that we can suggest that there should be one Northern Ireland expert on the staff in order to make sure that our problems are considered regularly.
An announcement in The Times, a few days ago, said that the Government are making a general survey of industrial trends. May I have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that this survey will take in the affairs of Northern Ireland? That is the type of continuous investigation and study which we want.
One of the most popular recommendations of the Working Party was that more money and support should be given to the tourist industry. I have my own pet theory on the Working Party's economics in that it seemed to be under the impression that it is productive and of great economic value to take in tourists from abroad, but that it is of little or no value to give holidays to our own people. It has been commonly supposed by various economists that to do one's own washing is very much less productive than doing someone else's. The tourist facilities of Northern Ireland can do extremely valuable work in providing Northern Ireland's people with holidays in their own country instead of their dashing off to the Continent or to Southern Ireland for their holidays.
The tourist industry has a fairly considerable potential. The new grants being made by the Northern Ireland Government for hotel building and improvements are extremely welcome. The Working Party was rather quick in saying that it did not recommend increased public works. A number of productive and economically justifiable public works could add considerably to the tourist industry. I think of heated outdoor swimming pools in some resorts which could lengthen the bathing season

into June and September. There was a plan quite recently for a footpath round the North Antrim coast which could equal, and probably more than equal, the Pennine Way in this country. The relatively small sums of money spent on this sort of thing could do a great deal to add to Northern Ireland's tourist amenities and which should be looked into.
There is a great need for new houses, and when houses are built near tourist resorts the possibility of designing and building a house which has a particular potential for letting rooms in the summer, possibly with an individual front door and individual bathrooms, might be considered. This is a small idea, but it is the sort of thing which helps. It was not the job of the Working Party to produce ideas like this, but they can go a considerable way towards solving our problems.
It is not always money which causes difficulty. I got rather tired going into bookshops and asking when the Ordnance Survey would produce a 1-inch map of my constituency and the rest of Northern Ireland. This job has not been completed. We have been waiting for such a map for twenty years. I need not persuade anyone that a good 1-inch survey map is possibly the best enticement to a particular type of tourist.
There is one very big snag for our tourist industry. The attraction for the English and Continental tourist is not Northern Ireland, but Ireland as a whole. It is the whole of Ireland which particularly attracts a tourist from this country if he wants to make a motor tour. But there is one very big snag. If an Englishman goes to Dublin and hires a car, he cannot take that car into the United Kingdom—into Northern Ireland. There is a Customs regulation which prohibits a citizen of the United Kingdom taking a foreign-registered hire car back into the United Kingdom. It also prevents any United Kingdom citizen from driving a Dublin-registered car in Northern Ireland.
This is a fairly standard regulation all over the world. It just happens to hit Northern Ireland rather hard. Last year, about 1,000 cars were available for hire to tourists in Southern Ireland. Possibly there were more this year. Those cars


are regularly on hire to tourists throughout the summer. A very considerable number of them are hired to Englishmen. About 600 to 700 families of English people are hiring cars every week right throughout the summer in Dublin and not one of those families can come to Northern Ireland.
I took this question up with the Treasury. We went into it very carefully indeed. I remember very well discussing it with a very senior and rather aged Customs official. When I made this point he threw up his hands in horror and said, "Oh, sir, but that would mean a change in the regulations". I said, "Yes, I think that we want to change the regulations." That put the thing utterly and completely out of court. Over his dead body would the Customs regulations be changed.
There is a small point which could be worked out between Westminster and Stormont to settle this question, and we might very well have 200 extra carloads of tourists coming into Northern Ireland every week. That is the kind of change we want, and again, it is the kind of cooperation which we need.
Moving on very briefly to the other major industry in my constituency, which is agriculture, I would say that the Hall Report does not deal very fully or eruditely with agriculture. One thing is quite apparent, and that is that whether this country enters the Common Market, as I hope we do, or whether it does not, there will be a very big change in British agriculture over the next five years, and I feel very strongly that this change is going to hit Northern Ireland rather worse than most. The Hall Report produces rather interesting figures. This is the first time that I have seen them. They show that, on the whole, we rely more on agricultural subsidies than other parts of the United Kingdom. This is not because we in Northern Ireland have the worst farmers. The reasons are fairly obvious. One is because our agricultural products are caught by freight rates, and inevitably the subsidy percentage becomes a larger percentage of the whole.
We also, for historical and geographical reasons, have to concentrate rather more on those products which have had the bigger subsidies and we have not been able to go in for those products, such as vegetables, which one can

sell direct to markets without subsidy, because we are so far from many of the markets. We are delighted that the Minister of Agriculture has recently made provision for an experiment in sugar beet growing which we hope may lead to a full-scale sugar beet industry which is unsubsidised and extremely profitable.
However, the next five years of transition, in or out of the Common Market, will be difficult, because we rely on subsidies, and also because our units of farming in Northern Ireland are particularly small. The small farmer has had to specialise to a very considerable degree to get an income. He has in fact, in many cases over-capitalised his farm completely beyond the levels which good commercial practice would justify. In the years ahead there will be a change of front and a quite considerable amount of the capital which the small farmer has invested will be dissipated.
It may be that milking parlours are no longer used for milking; there may be high-grade cattle bought at considerable price and another type of beast is wanted; it may be that expensive machinery has been bought for one sort of crop and another is wanted. But there will be changes in the emphases in agriculture and there will also be new capital needed by new forms of agriculture. Will the Minister of Agriculture, when he is looking at these problems, please think very carefully of the small Ulster farmer whom these changes will hit hard?
There is another problem I want to come to, and that is one which the Hall Committee mentions on page 85 in Appendix XII of its Report. That is the question of our own regional problems in Northern Ireland. Quite frankly, this again is a place where the Committee's Report, though excellent in parts, has not, I think, done itself justice. In my constituency I could take hon. Members to places where the level of unemployment is 2 per cent. or 2½ per cent. The people there have probably never been more prosperous in their lives. I can also take hon. Members to large parts of the country where the unemployment level is 14 per cent. to 15 per cent. It is those regional problems which are some of the most difficult which we have to solve in Northern Ireland.
Some of our unemployed are in such inaccessible places that it is almost impossible to provide them with jobs. The ideal of a small, 20-man factory in every village is a lively thought, but quite impracticable. We must think seriously, of taking jobs to these people, putting jobs in places where the people can get to them. At present, a very considerable number of people in Northern Ireland get to their jobs only after very long bus journeys. Many girls in my constituency earn £8 a week in a factory, but take home barely £5 after paying their bus fares—anything up to£2—as well as for their stamps and lunches. I reckon that these people, wheher they are employed or not, are getting a very raw deal. Perhaps we may try to get factories to the more outlying areas.
We were delighted to hear of the two very large firms which have announced their movement to Northern Ireland—the Michelin Tyre Co., Ltd. and Carreras Ltd., cigarette manufacturers. Both are going to the Belfast area although considerable inducements were offered to them to go to areas deeper in the country. If we cannot take the work to the people, we must give the people the opportunity of moving nearer where work exists. It is very much more difficult today to get a decent house in an area like Belfast where there are reasonable employment prospects, and relatively easy to get one in areas where there are no employment prospects.
The Government of Northern Ireland—it is largely their responsibility—must look at this matter carefully in future. I believe that there may well be room for co-operation between Westminster and Stormont. There are town planners and various other experts who could he of value to the Northern Ireland Government if loaned to them.
I end again on the note that we must have continuous co-operative planning between the two Governments. If we do, I am sure that it will prove the correctness of my belief that if 93 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland can obtain good jobs there is no reason why the other 7 per cent. should not, too.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I should be very hesitant in claiming to be an expert on Northern Ireland. Indeed, I am very reluctant to say that I am of Irish extraction, which is perhaps one of the qualifications that I can claim for participating in the debate, because I remember telling an Irishman that I was of Irish extraction and he replied, "What does that mean—that you had a tooth out in Dublin?"
I have listened to hon. Members opposite discussing unemployment in Northern Ireland. I am disappointed at the efforts of representatives of Northern Ireland to stimulate this Government—the responsibility lies with them; I shall refer in a moment to the Hall Report on this issue—into doing something about the tragic position in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) complained about the contribution made to the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee). The hon. Member then proceeded to make a speech the content of which, as far as the problem with which we are dealing is concerned, was of no consequence whatever. It was a combination of clichés of every possible type. He talked about "blowing the clouds of pessimism away", "pots of gold", "ships on sandbanks", and "hostages to fortune". The whole of his speech was constructed around a number of clichés and he did not make a single contribution to the debate.
Then we heard the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin). Although I did not agree wholly with her contribution—I felt that she was on a tightrope in attempting to face the inefficiency of this Government while, at the same time, wanting to be loyal to a party—she made some suggestions. She laid emphasis upon the difficulties of Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to the Irish Sea and the problem that results from companies moving to Northern Ireland and facing additional transport costs to get their goods into the rest of the United Kingdom. But that is not a difficulty that cannot be overcome.
This is a situation in which 31,000 people—6·4 per cent. of the employable population—are unemployed out of a


total population of 1¼ million. I am one of those who has experienced unemployment. I am sorry if I bore the House on this subject, but to me unemployment cannot be measured in statistics. There are not only the material disadvantages of being without a job. The psychological disadvantages are perhaps even worse.
A man wants to be able to command the respect of his wife and family and within a short time, with all the love in the world, that respect is eroded by virtue of his not being able to support them. Do not let us imagine that we are simply talking about lines that can be drawn better. We are talking about a human problem which, with all its variations, does not seem to get much better.
It is no good the hon. Lady saying that there has been a decrease of about 2,000 in ten years. The simple fact is that from 1950 to the present time unemployment has varied between 6 per cent. and 10 per cent. We really ought to get down to the issue. Of course, the Irish Sea is a problem, but we have to overcome it because we are dealing with human beings and not statistics.
I have read the Hall Report, although I did not go through every single paragraph and consider every dot and comma. Unlike most hon. Members, I find that I have to try to grasp a report as quickly as possible, as otherwise life is not worth while. I am in complete agreement with the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West that this Report offers no solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. If the hon. Members for Northern Ireland constituencies want to solve this problem they have to face the fact that the only solution so long as we have this Government in power is to put maximum pressure on their Front Bench.
Look at the history of Northern Ireland. Why are hon. Members opposite not putting maximum pressure on their Front Bench? All the hon. Members from that area are Tories. If this Government have no responsibility to them and they are charged with the responsibility of looking after their constituents, which the Government are not prepared to do, who is to assist them in that responsibility? The Government will not do it unless the hon. Members

will take courage in their own hands and treat the Government in the way they ought to be treated. It is no good trying to hide this fact.

Mr. George Lawson: Will my hon. Friend explain how he thinks hon. Members from Ulster can apply this pressure when, no matter what Government there is here, they will still be returned to this House with a majority of 20,000 or 30,000?

Mr. Loughlin: I know it is a foregone conclusion that they will be returned to this House. I do not know how they will apply the pressure. That is up to them, but I can tell them how they could apply pressure. That would be by going into the Lobby against the Tory Party this evening and saying, "We are not tolerating any longer the altitude of this Tory Government to Northern Ireland."

Mr. E. G. Willis: Does not my hon. Friend think that with majorities of 20,000 and 30,000 they could afford to be rebels against the Government?

Mr. Loughlin: Of course they could be rebels against the Government.

Mr. Ross: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that in 1951, when unemployment there was over 10 per cent., they could have brought the Government down by exerting pressure?

Mr. Loughlin: I hope that my hon. Friends do not mind my intervening by making a speech.
I want to draw the attention of hon. Members from Northern Ireland to a particular section of the Report. This is the nub of the problem. It says, in paragraph 191:
The scope of economic planning in the first sense is therefore very limited, since the powers of the Government of Northern Ireland are themselves limited. It has no power over tariffs; its powers of taxation are very limited; there is no central bank and no possibility of pursuing a separate monetary policy.
Hon. Members, talking about the Report, have been saying that they should attract tourists to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, North told the House that the greatest attraction from a tourist point of view would be the introduction of a 1-inch Ordnance map. I can imagine him publishing advertisements in newspapers in


the United States of America saying, "come to Northern Ireland. We have some 1-inch Ordnance maps."

Mr. Ross: Printed in Ireland.

Mr. Loughlin: Why did they not attack the Government over Short Brothers and Harland? The classic example of how the Government could assist the Northern Ireland people is in the aircraft industry. The Government own 69½ per cent. of the shares in Short's, who have designed, developed and built some wonderful aircraft.
I direct the attention of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, now sitting on the Front Bench, to an aircraft concerning which there has been discussion in recent months—the Belfast. According to all the experts, this is an extremely good transport aircraft. It could be adapted for the use of the British Forces, which, I understand, are in dire need of transport aircraft. We are still playing about, however, with the inadequate Beverley.
I do not claim to be an expert and I hope that when the Government reply to the debate I may be corrected, but the Belfast transport aircraft is so constructed that its doors are wide enough to trans-ship all types of military equipment. They are wide enough to allow of parachute drops of all types of article. The Belfast has a seating capacity of 249, is extremely cheap in operation and is a well-designed aircraft. The Government have placed an order for ten of them.

Mr. Ross: Eventually.

Mr. Loughlin: Yes, eventually; they have put in the order. To cover the cost of design and development, however, it will be necessary to sell 30 of these aircraft.
According to the Minister of Defence, we are spending £300 million on the aircraft industry.

Mr. Lee: Annually.

Mr. Loughlin: That is what I meant. If anybody should know, it is the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft), who is now Minister of Defence. He is particularly keen on the spending of Government money.
If the Government are keen to solve the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland, why do they not concentrate some of the assistance in the aircraft industry by advancing the orders for more Belfast aircraft? This would do two things. It would help in part the unemployment problem in Northern Ireland, but it would also give the country a transport aircraft of first-class design and cheaper in operation than almost any other transport aircraft which could be secured.

Mr. Lee: There is the vertical takeoff machine, too.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to go too fully into this, because, possibly, some of my hon. Friends will have suggestions to make.
There is no sense of urgency of any kind in tackling the problem. The hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West referred to the difficulties that a skilled worker faces in getting a trade union card. One of the ways to solve a problem of this kind would be by both sides of industry coming together to increase productivity in the existing industries. This would place them in a much better competitive position.
England, Scotland and Wales have had experience of increasing productivity. I know that some hon. Members opposite regard me as being revolutionary. For a number of years I was a trade union official and participated in every form of co-operation in industry with a view to improving the efficiency of the industries with which I was associated. I found that with any kind of workers, provided that they had confidence that, through their representatives, they would be consulted at every stage, it was possible to introduce any new method or process in order to increase productivity. If the trade unions are given their rightful place in industry that will happen.
Sooner or later, whether we are dealing with the British or the Northern Ireland industry, or industry anywhere else, there will have to be a recognition that the ordinary industrial worker makes as great a contribution to the success and prosperity of an organisation as anyone else employed there. The idea that we can segregate manual workers from those


termed "the staff" or the "executive" is archaic, and the sooner we get rid of it the better it will be for industry.
In Northern Ireland there has been almost a universal acceptance of the need for co-operation in industry. But the Government refuse to recognise the organised body of trade union work-people. We cannot achieve a sense of co-operation in industry. I wonder how long the present Government would be able to ignore the British T.U.C. or how long they would be able to say to Frank Cousins—if hon. Members do not like my quoting Frank Cousins I will refer to the former general secretary of my own union, the Union of Shop Distributives and Allied Workers—Alan Birch. I would quote the present general secretary, except that he is a new man who may not be so well known. But do hon. Members think that the Government could ignore Alan Birch?

Mr. Willis: They would like to.

Mr. Loughlin: They would like to, as my hon. Friend says, but they would not succeed in doing so.
It is impossible to ignore the British T.U.C. In Northern Ireland there is a trade union committee which is part of the Irish Trade Unions Congress, but 95 per cent. of the membership are members of the British trade union movement. The Government of Northern Ireland refuse to recognise or to consult them.
Though this is the attitude of the Government in Northern Ireland, I place a large share of the responsibility on this Government, whose job it is to see that industry goes to Northern Ireland. The day-to-day operations in Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Government. If we want to look at the problem of unemployment in Northern Ireland, first we must tackle the Government Front Bench in this House and then deal with the affairs in Northern Ireland. A prerequisite for the real expansion of existing industries is a recognition of the trade union movement which has a part to play and an invaluable contribution to make.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton referred to a development corporation. There is in Northern Ireland

the Development Council, to which reference is made in this Report. The Council has simply been a glorified advertising agency with no teeth and no power to act. It simply advertises in one way or another, or sends an ambassador and attaches him to a given country to attract industry. I am not saying that new industries have not been attracted, but what is fundamental is that there has not been a sufficient attraction of industries of the kind which should be attracted to Northern Ireland to solve its problems.
It is not just industries which Northern Ireland wants to attract. It must attract the industries which will solve its unemployment problems. There is a great need for a development corporation in Ireland with powers to do what is necessary. Although I would not care to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton, with a development corporation one must be a little careful about complete powers. If a development corporation as an advisory body to the Government is set up, it can advise on all aspects of policy. Whilst its job would chiefly be to attract new industry, it would have to have something to say about grants to be given and the type of industry which should receive them.
I do not criticise small industries, but, in the context of the Northern Ireland unemployment situation, to spend £1 million in seven years on grants for laundries and quarries does not seem to me to be the right way to spend the money necessary to produce industry.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: Surely small industries are better than none?

Mr. Loughlin: Small industries are better than none. I have quarries in my constituency. I should be the last to suggest that they should go somewhere else. Indeed, they would have difficulty in going anywhere else. The same is true of laundries. But are laundries and quarries the type of industry to solve this problem? Would it not be better to try to utilise the money to attract high labour ratio industries? This is what Ireland must do if it is to solve the problem.
The development corporation would not only advise and distribute the grants, but it would be essential for it to develop on the research side. This would be one of


its primary functions. One of the problems is that private capital in Ireland is not spending sufficient money on development. It was a development corporation that developed the Hovercraft. If a development corporation devoted itself to research, it could make a great contribution to solving Ireland's problems.
I do not want to spend too long, because other hon. Members want to speak, but it would be unseemly for me if I did not make reference to one of the recommendations in the Hall Report. The Committee said that too much public works development was out but that Ireland could do something in housing. The Report is not too clear as to the extent of what it could do, but we should recognise what could be done about housing if there was the will. The Northern Ireland housing situation is bad. Belfast alone has 7,000 applicants on the waiting list, according to my information. About 43 per cent. of its housing stock is composed of pre-1880 houses, almost double the figure for England and Wales.
Further, many building workers there are unemployed. This is to me a fantastic situation. When we examine the statistics, we find that there are carpenters, bricklayers, handymen, masons, slaters and plasterers all unemployed. We have to devise a method of bringing together the materials and the workpeople to resolve the housing problem in Northern Ireland in a manner which will perform two purposes. One is to solve the housing problem from a habitation point of view, and the other is to create employment. In housing and in public works, one of the values of those two methods of expansion is that it has a snowballing effect which will make a greater impact on the employment situation than appears on the surface. The Roosevelt New Deal clearly demonstrated that.
I say to the people of Northern Ireland that if they have to rely on the Hall Committee's Report and on the British Government and, regretfully, though I have to say it, if they have to rely on the tactics of those Members who represent Northern Ireland in this House, I am sorry for them, because they will languish for many years to come.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) referred to

the tactics of the Conservative Members of Parliament. I see nothing in the tactics of Members opposite. It was about half an hour ago that the hon. Gentleman said that he would make a short speech because a number of Northern Ireland Members wished to speak. I am very sorry that others of my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland have been kept out of the debate by the long-windedness of the hon. Gentleman, whose remarks were more notable for their verbosity than for their good sense.
The counties of Northern Ireland have been very exhaustively inquired into in this Report. Some hon. Members have been honest enough, including the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, to admit that they have read only bits and pieces of it——

Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member must not misquote me. I read the Report, but I did so in the same way as all hon. Members read reports—I read it in a speedy and not a detailed way.

Mr. McMaster: I can agree that there is inefficiency in reading in a speedy fashion. The Hall Committee was set up with very short terms of reference. They were:
To examine and report on the economic situation of Northern Ireland, the factors causing the persistent problem of high unemployment, and what measures can be taken to bring about a lasting improvement.
The Committee dealt most adequately with the first two of these three requirements, but I must inform the House, and particularly my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, that the conclusions it reached on the last point have caused a great deal of concern in Northern Ireland, and especially in my constituency. It dealt adequately with this great problem of persistent and heavy unemployment. It dealt at some length with the reasons why there was such persistent unemployment with the rundown of the linen industry.
In my constituency I have one of the largest linen mills, if not the largest, in Northern Ireland, and a well-equipped one, the York Street Linen Company, which has had to close down within the last two or three years. We have heard a lot about shipbuilding tonight and that the engineering and metal industries are also suffering from some contraction,


that agriculture is badly affected and, according to the Report, likely to be even more badly affected in the next four, five or even ten years. A rundown of about 15,000 people is forecast in agriculture. At the same time, there is an increase of 4,000 or 5,000 in the working population each year.
These are problems which the Northern Ireland Government, in the first instance, are called upon to face, and that Government have taken steps—which, unfortunately, I cannot go into because of the lateness of the hour—which are commented on very favourably in the Hall Report. There are certain matters which come particularly within the realm of the Imperial Parliament and Her Majesty's Government here, and I am very pleased to see present the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport—and the Minister of Aviation was with us earlier—because I want to refer to the problems facing two of the largest and seriously affected industries in Northern Ireland.
The shipbuilding yard of Messrs. Harland and Wolff is in my constituency. It is the single biggest shipbuilding yard in the British Isles—indeed, it is the largest single shipbuilding yard in the world. Since the end of the war, until fairly recently, it employed up to 23,000 men every year. The firm benefited from the crises in Korea and Suez, but it had been working full out ever since the beginning of the war in order to build, first, the naval vessels needed for our defence, and, later, to replace the shipping losses we suffered during the war. In 1961 it was suddenly hit by the world recession in shipping, and 10,000 men were laid off during last year.
There are certain ways in which the Imperial Government could help this industry—not just Harland and Wolff alone, because I am not advocating that help should be extended only to one yard but to all the shipbuilding yards in Britain. In our foreign affairs, we should adopt a more positive and dynamic policy towards such countries as the United States, France, Italy, Japan, and even some of our own Commonwealth countries, which have adopted shipping and

shipbuilding policies that are very much to our disadvantage.
Continental countries subsidise their shipbuilding quite openly, France and Italy being the worst offenders. The United States practises flag discrimination, insisting that cargoes coming to America should be carried in much more expensive American ships, which are financed by the Americans and which fly flags of convenience, all to the disadvantage of British shipping. I emphasise shipping here, because on a prosperous British shipping industry our shipbuilding depends.
I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to take very much to heart the advice that has been given to him by the Chamber of Shipping, and I was encouraged by a speech he made in Belfast very recently when he said that the Government were considering retaliating against countries which adopted and habitually practised such unfair methods as those I have mentioned. This theme was also repeated by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in a speech made at a Chamber of Commerce dinner. All the support that this House can give should be given in order to achieve a firmer policy by Her Majesty's Government in matters relating to shipping and shipbuilding, because of the very great importance of these basic industries, not only to Northern Ireland, where they play a fundamental part in our economy, but to the country as a whole. We are a maritime nation. We live by trade and that trade must be carried in our ships, so that we cannot easily accept policies adopted and operated by foreign countries which are damaging to us.
I should like to develop this at greater length but time does not permit, and I want to say something about Messrs. Short Brothers and Harland. A number of hon. Members have mentioned this industry in East Belfast and I appeal to the Government to consider the points which have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There is no doubt that when faced with an emergency—such as that in India in recent weeks—it is necessary, for the defence of our interests in the West and the free world, that we should be in a position to give military aid to the free


countries of the world when they are attacked.
For this reason we need to transport a variety of articles to the danger spots. It is surprising how many things one does not think about when planning ahead. One must carry all types of equipment, things as unlikely as bulldozers for levelling airfields, rocketry and helicopters. The Belfast air freighter, about which a good deal has been said in the House, was designed specifically to meet this requirement, for it can carry four helicopters and even a tank.
However, only ten of these aircraft have been ordered and I urge the Home Secretary to convey to the Minister of Aviation—and I regret that he has had to leave the Chamber—this point of view, to ask him to reconsider our tactical and strategic needs in the light of the emergency which occurred in recent weeks and to see whether ten Belfasts are sufficient to meet these needs. The Minister of Aviation should consider this matter from the point of view of our meeting what is known as the OR351—the operational requirement for the Beverleys and Hastings—and seeing whether a derivative of the Belfast would be suitable for meeting our defence needs and, at the same time, helping to solve the unemployment problem in Belfast.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Would the hon. Member also bear in mind economic aid in the light of the promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT last Monday, in col. 636? Aid of this kind for the under-developed countries could be supplied through the under-utilised resources of this country.

Mr. McMaster: I turn to a subject which was omitted from the Hall Report. No mention is made of the valuable work being done in apprenticeship training. This is a fundamental matter in Belfast, for it is a high-class and skilled form of training which forms the nucleus of our ability to attract new industries to Northern Ireland.
In The Times and in some other newspapers today is an advertisement about the Seacat. All the technical skill of the engineers in Belfast is now being adopted by many countries in this defensive weapon. Another important

Belfast project is the Skyvan, which several overseas countries have found interesting and in which several airlines are interested. This requires additional finance to assist its development. It is a small aircraft meant to operate rather like a commercial van.
I have pointed these developments out—and the Skyvan, which can carry a wide variety of machinery and equipment, needs more money for its development—n an effort to get my right hon. Friend to convey to the Minister of Aviation the necessity for him to have second thoughts on these matters.
The vertical take-off plane, SC1, was pioneered in Belfast. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, in answer to a question on Monday, said that the Government were still considering the application of this multi-jet Vertical take-off aircraft far transport purposes. Part of this work could also very well be done by our engineers in Belfast.
But I must leave that point because I want to deal with the main topic cat our discussion, and I cannot rest with the solution of the problem which is set out in paragraph 32 of the Hall Report where it is said—and I paraphrase—that the Committee sees no hope in the next five years of any improvement in our unemployment position. It is surely the function of Government to provide for the prosperity of the people, to provide, first, for full employment and then to improve conditions. The Hall Committee dealt with the rising standard of living in Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole and pointed out that it still lags behind that of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The question has been posed many times today: what is the solution to the problem? How do we attract new industry to Northern Ireland? I do not accept the Socialist solution of directing industry, any more than I accept directing labour from Northern Ireland to England. In the final analysis, when one attempts to direct unwilling industry to any area it will not settle happily and be run efficiently and prosperously there.
The schemes adopted by the Northern Ireland Government offering capital grants to industry to attract firms and


new industry to go there of their own free will, because they believe that in Northern Ireland they will find the work-people they want, the productivity they require and the Government assistance they need, is the best way of meeting our problem.

Dr. Bray: Dr. Bray rose—

Mr. McMaster: I am sorry. It is too late now, if the hon. Member will forgive me.
Two methods were discussed in the Hall Committee Report. There was the suggestion put forward by the Northern Ireland Government that there should be a subsidy for each employed person. This was rejected by the Committee for a number of reasons, including the economic reason—and after all the Committee was led by an economist—that this would encourage or might help to keep alive a failing industry which would not be for the long-term benefit of Northern Ireland.
However, another matter was considered—though I regret only very briefly—in paragraph 122 and the following four or five paragraphs of the Report. This was the suggestion that a tax holiday should be offered to firms coming to Northern Ireland. I should like to ask the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider this proposal most seriously. It is not a new suggestion. It was used in Great Britain before the war. It was used in France and Italy and even by our neighbour Eire and in Malta successfully to attract new industries.
A tax inducement such as this favours efficient firms. It does not help to keep inefficient firms alive. It does not necessarily cost the Treasury anything, because the suggestion is that this tax holiday should be offered as an alternative to the capital grants which are at present offered by the Northern Ireland Government, and firms would be free to choose. The Hall Committee pointed out in paragraph 125:
The Board of Inland Revenue has pointed out that there would be difficulties of administration and serious risks of abuse.
This is a typical Civil Service answer. Is it a good enough and sufficient answer to turn down these proposals?
A much greater degree of flexibility is necessary, and flexibility could certainly be worked out. It is not beyond the ingenuity of our tax officials, for whom I have a certain degree of admiration, to work out a scheme whereby such an inducement as a tax holiday for a limited period of seven to twelve years could be offered to new industry, and particularly to labour-intensive industry, to set up in Northern Ireland.
Unless this is done, we in Northern Ireland shall face great difficulty in competing with industries in the Republic of Ireland. New industry has been attracted there and has benefited from it, and our new industries in Northern Ireland must compete with industries already enjoying this tax advantage. This is a consideration not mentioned or considered at all, apparently, by the Hall Committee.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) said, we are also, perhaps, about to enter the Common Market, but whether we do so or not, I believe, as she does, that we must solve our unemployment problem straightaway as a matter of urgency. If Britain joins the Common Market, there might be considerable obstacles to extending such a scheme as I have suggested, which would undoubtedly help Northern Ireland.
I conclude by saying that I believe that the solutions to our problems in Northern Ireland are just within our grasp. If the Government would only be prepared to take the plunge, and if the Treasury will make this sacrifice to administrative convenience, I think that Northern Ireland could share fully in the rising productivity and full employment which is enjoyed in other parts of the United Kingdom.

9.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Henry Brooke): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) for the optimistic tone of his speech, because I am quite certain that the one condition in which we cannot solve the unemployment problem is in an atmosphere of gloom and disaster.
I should like to tell the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) and the House that the reason why I did not speak first but


moved the Motion formally, leaving the Floor free to him to move his Amendment, was because I knew that we should have a debate of only three or four hours and I thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would prefer me to use my time to take up the points raised from both sides during the debate rather than to make a set speech at the outset. Indeed, if I had spoken as long as the hon. Member, no one from the back benches would have had a chance to rise before half-past seven.
I should like to join in the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) to the work which my predecessor did for Northern Ireland. I know that the First Secretary had a deep concern for his Northern Ireland responsibilities. I think it is important, despite all the interchanges and pleasantries across the Floor of the House, for all of us to keep in mind the whole time the fact that we are dealing with an essentially human problem. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) said that he knew what it was to be unemployed. Let us all think of these matters in these terms. There are people—our own fellow-citizens—who are at the present time unemployed in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, and unemployment is more severe in Northern Ireland than it is elsewhere. It is quite right that we should have our differences and challenges, but we are talking about human beings all the time.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West alleged that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North had made no constructive suggestions in his speech. That simply was not true, because I took a note of what he said. He was the first hon. Member in the debate to suggest a joint permanent committee of members of both Governments—and I shall return to that point later—and who made the original suggestion of a Minister of State who could keep special contact with Northern Ireland. The parallel with Wales is not complete, because Wales is administered as part of—or rather along with—England, though with much devolution to Cardiff, whereas Northern Ireland is under a separate Government. I am absolutely certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, was right to urge that we should all help to blow away the clouds of pessimism

and create an atmosphere of confidence, because, unless that atmosphere of confidence is created, there is no hope for these people who are at present unemployed.
The hon. Member for Newton described Northern Ireland in terms of disaster which would deter any forward looking industrialist from coming and opening a factory there. That is the one fatal and unforgivable thing to do. The hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) spoke of ever-increasing unemployment in Northern Ireland. It simply is not true. In fact, unemployment in Northern Ireland is now lower than it was a year ago. But it is much too high.

Mr. McLeavy: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. When I spoke of ever-increasing unemployment—if he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will find that this is right—I was referring to the general situation both in Northern Ireland and the British Isles generally.

Mr. Brooke: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept my statement that unemployment in Northern Ireland is lower now than it was twelve months ago.
The truth about Northern Ireland is that, owing to the gradual decline of employment in the older staple industries, the really striking success which has been attained in attracting new industry to Northern Ireland has been off-set and has not marked up an equivalent net gain of employment.
It is, of course, fantastic to speak, as some hon. Members opposite have done, of lack of effort by one Government or another. The general standard of living in Northern Ireland at present is probably higher than it has ever been in history. There is this unemployment, and we must reduce it. But to imagine that if one goes to Belfast one will find nobody able to afford a car or able to afford a washing machine or refrigerator is to be utterly remote from reality, as, I am sure, my hon. Friends will confirm. The black spot is the 7 per cent. unemployment.
The value of the Hall Report is that it concentrates attention on essentials. It shows beyond doubt that there are no simple remedies or expedients by which


one can cure unemployment if only one would decide to do so. It shows that the secret of doing it cannot be found to lie in new-fangled though unsound ideas. The essence of the Hall Report is that the secret lies in showing to the world for all to see the attractions of Northern Ireland as a site for industry and persuading business men to locate or develop their factories there.
I could not understand why one hon. Member attacked the Northern Ireland Development Council as a sort of grandiose advertising agency. Surely, that is exactly what we want. Anybody who has valuable goods to sell spends money and effort in advertising them. Otherwise, how will anyone know about them? Are we to be ashamed of the economic opportunities which Northern Ireland possesses? Above all, what all of us, regardless of party, ought to do is to let the world know that in Northern Ireland there is a very experienced population, hard working and anxious for work, living in a country with great potentialities and great beauty, a population ever determined to go on and get ahead.

Mr. Loughlin: I should not like to convey the impression that I was condemning the Council. What I said was that its activities have been restricted to being a glorified advertising agency, but I went on to say that what we wanted was another organisation with some teeth.

Mr. Brooke: Lord Chandos, who has put a great deal of work into the Northern Ireland Development Council, has told me that there is excellent liaison between his organisation, the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland and the Board of Trade in London. There are jobs for all to do here.
I was saying that we must advertise all that is good in and all the potentiality of Northern Ireland. That is what the British Government have successfully done in South Wales where the unemployment clouds which hung so heavily four years ago, as I well remember, have now largely been lifted. I am convinced that this is the one policy not only to remedy unemployment in Northern Ireland but to set Northern Ireland firmly on the road to modernity and long-term prosperity.

Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the slur in the Report on the productivity of workers in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: I do not think it is for me, in this debate, to correct anything that is said in the Report. I am certainly prepared to say that any business man who wishes to develop in Northern Ireland will find that men and women are anxious to work and to give of their best. Many of them need only the opportunity and training—I stress that—to be highly productive.
I am sure that it was right for the two Governments to join together in setting up this Joint Working Party. May I express my deep regret that Sir Herbert Brittain, the first Chairman of it, died before the inquiry was completed. He was a personal friend of mine. He was an admirable appointment as the original Chairman, and it was a tragedy for us all that he was not allowed to complete the inquiry.
Although there has been criticism of the final form of the Report, I think that we would all wish to express our appreciation to those who did the work of compiling it, to Sir Robert Hall, his colleagues and secretariat. Whether or not we agree with its conclusions and inferences, we all, with respect to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), feel that a great deal of useful information, if not all the information that we would wish, is set out in the Report.
I do not think there has been much challenge in the debate of the assessment of the existing position in Northern Ireland contained in the Report. As it indicates, Northern Ireland has a live and vigorous economy. It is far from stagnant. Northern Ireland is in a phase of economic transition, but the liveliness and anxiety to break out and create a new modern-based industrial economy is unquestionably there. It is important to note that the financial aids to industrial expansion have provided about 50,000 new jobs since the war, and many thousands of other new jobs are in the pipeline.
We have to speed up the expansion so that it more than offsets the inevitable decline in some of the old staple industries which we have seen in a number of


parts of Great Britain—for example, in the cotton industry and in the coal industry in certain parts. We cannot escape from these unavoidable economic developments. I am convinced that this can be done in Northern Ireland, and, as long as I hold my present position, I pledge myself to do everything in my power, working with the United Kingdom Government, to assist the Northern Ireland Government in solving these problems.
I wish to refer to several items arising from the Hall Report. The oil fuel subsidy recommended in the Report is entirely new. It is accepted by both Governments, and plans are in train to bring it into existence. I think that it will be a valuable supplement to the coal subsidy.
Then there is this question of the carriage of freight by air to and from Northern Ireland. I was asked if I could say anything further about that. The position is that the Air Transport Licensing Board has agreed to be responsible for the promotion of a study of these possibilities, and the Board itself is now considering the scope of the inquiry and the method of work. I am quite certain that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation, who heard the references earlier in the debate to this subject, would confirm that these matters will be determined quickly between himself and the Northern Ireland Minister of Commerce, and that study will go forward.
I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) who asked about the House Committee on sea transport. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has now received that Report and he proposes to publish it, and the further consideration which was promised by the two Governments of the effects of costs of sea transport in Northern Ireland industry is now in hand.
The Hall Report confirmed the value of existing financial inducements. To my hon. Friend for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), I should like to say that if he discussed the idea of a tax holiday with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer he would find that there are very grave difficulties in the way of it. It would be much easier to provide a tax holiday in a small and self-contained country. But it might be

a matter of some Great Britain firm opening a subsidiary in Northern Ireland. It would be extremely difficult to allocate the profits successfully as between the one establishment and the other. I can even imagine that some firms might find so attractive the idea of a tax holiday that there would be a surreptitious shift of profits. These things, I must say to my hon. Friend, are not as easy when we come to see how they could be put into practice.
But, in accordance with the Flail Report, industrial derating is to be maintained in Northern Ireland; substantial financial assistance is to be continued to co-operative publicity by the linen industry; and there is to be an increase in the housing programme. May I say, as a former United Kingdom Minister of Housing, that when I have been in Northern Ireland I have been impressed by the possibilities of speeding up the housing programme? I think it will very much depend on whether the resources of the industry, including skilled labour resources, can be suitably made available to carry out the scheme, but I am quite sure it does offer a very important chance both of improving the economy and of improving the basis of Northern Ireland life. [Interruption.] Let us try to make sure that in this expansion of the housing programme to which the Northern Ireland Government have committed themselves any skilled labour there is in the building industry is brought into use. It has been agreed in accordance with the recommendation of the Hall Report that the temporary additional subsidy of £11 per house, the subsidy which was previously financed from the special Customs surcharge, should continue now as a charge on ordinary Revenue.
I was asked about the employment subsidy. That we are not disposed to go forward with; not for the reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, in her, if I may say so, excellent speech, suggested, that it was because of possible Common Market implications: it was rather because in areas of declining industry we think that the maximum effort should be directed to measures which are designed to attract new growth industries. The United Kingdom Government believe that an employment subsidy of the kind which had been proposed if it were applied


indiscriminately to all productive industries, might in the long term have the opposite effect to that intended by impeding the flow of labour into those industries which are growing and which it is essential to encourage.
Moreover, such a subsidy might very well be extremely expensive in relation to the results which it might achieve, and, as my hon. Friend also mentioned, once started it would be difficult to put any limit to it. We examined carefully the possibility of confining the subsidy to industries with high possibilities of growth, but it was quite impossible to draw any discriminating line there. We also examined the possibility of a subsidy related to increases in employment, and exclusively to that, but we were driven to the conclusion that there is no form of employment subsidy which would not be open to such difficulties and objections that it would be impracticable, and which in relation to the difficulties and obstacles would make a substantial enough and lasting enough improvement to the unemployment problem.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North) rose——

Mr. Brooke: I am afraid that I cannot give way to the right hon. Gentleman because so many hon. Members have asked me questions to which I wish to reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East asked me about Harland and Wolff. All shipbuilders everywhere are facing difficulties at the moment because of a world surplus of shipbuilding capacity. Competition for what orders there are is getting keen. Harland and Wolff has what in present circumstances is a fair amount of orders in hand. It has an assault ship for the Navy, tankers for BP, a tanker for carrying liquid methane, a cargo liner and three tramps. I do not think it is doing too badly by comparison with the other large yards in the United Kingdom.
The changes in capital allowances announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day should certainly be a help to shipbuilders like Harland and Wolff which are showing their confidence in the future

of the industry by putting capital in modernisation and re-equipment.
My hon. Friend also referred to Short Bros. and Harland. I should like to join him in expressing praise of its apprentice training scheme. I saw it myself when I was there, and was greatly impressed by it.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my query about aircraft?

Mr. Brooke: I was just about to deal with the aircraft. The position is that the two Governments have together agreed that the necessary steps should be taken to provide the finance which is needed to enable Shorts to complete the current order for ten Belfast aircraft. It seems that a sum in the region of £10 million may be involved; so this is very material assistance to employment in Northern Ireland.
Following the recent decision to place a further order for VC.10 military transport aircraft, negotiations are taking place for a substantial share of that work to be sub-contracted to Short's. Short's is one of the companies Which have submitted designs for an aircraft to replace the Hastings and the Beverley in the Royal Air Force. It is not possible for a decision on this requirement to be taken yet, but the Government fully appreciate the importance of an early decision to both Short's and the rest of the aircraft industry.
The House will be aware that negotiations are in progress with the French over a proposed joint project for building a supersonic airliner. Neither I nor anyone else can say at the moment whether these negotiations will be brought to a successful conclusion, but if they are that project will provide a goad deal of work for the aircraft industry as a whole. I cannot say what, if any, of that work will go to Short's, but Short's, like the whole of the industry, is suffering from a lack of overall work, and the mere fact that if these negotiations come to fruition it will add a great block of work to the load on the industry is, I would judge, bound to help all firms throughout the industry.
I have no time to dwell on agricultural development, although I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for


Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) said about it, and I assure him that not only my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture but I myself will bear in mind always the small farmers of Ulster. I was immensely impressed by what I saw of the reconstruction of a small farm when I was last in Northern Ireland. One could see how opportunities were being taken, and it will be extremely interesting to see the result of the sugar beet experiment mentioned by my hon. Friend.
The main issue must be industrial development. Northern Ireland is given by the Board of Trade treatment equal to that which is accorded to the most needy development districts in Great Britain. Special arrangements have been made for the Ministry of Commerce in Northern Ireland to be notified by the Board of Trade of any firms interested in expanding. The House may care to know that thirty-two additional names have been notified by the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Commerce since the beginning of the financial year.
A number of firms are undoubtedly waiting to see what will come of the Common Market negotiations. I was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Newton, if I recollect rightly, did not mention the Common Market. My own view, which is shared by many others, is that if an early decision should be reached for us to enter that would be one of the best possible pieces of news for Northern Ireland because of the American firms which are waiting to see whether it will be possible for them, by setting up in Northern Ireland to get the benefit of being in—may I say?—an English-speaking country while at the same time having the whole market of Europe at hand.
I have been asked about various forms of advisory council. It is really for the Northern Ireland Government to judge whether an economic advisory council would assist or be a fifth wheel to the coach. But when hon. Members opposite talk about an economic planning council, either they mean direction of industry or they mean nothing at all,

and we must acept that. Do they mean that firms should be told that they are to go to Northern Ireland and set up there, profit or loss, success or failure? If not, economic planning means nothing in this context.

Mr. Lee: What about "Neddy" then?

Mr. Brooke: I said, in this context. That was why I was smiling at one point in the hon. Member's speech. No amount of Government planning will in itself turn an unsuccessful, unprofitable factory into a successful and profitable one of the type we have to attract to Northern Ireland.
With respect to my hon. Friends, I do not believe that we need a joint permanent committee of Ministers of the two Governments. I am inclined to believe rather in informal and flexible arrangements. Equally I agree with them that we should not meet only when there is something contentious or critical to discuss. I want to ensure that there is complete collaboration, and I want to bring in other Ministers of the United Kingdom Government, as I am sure the Minister of Commerce would bring in members of his Government, if that would be fruitful, on any particular occasion.
I know that the Minister of Labour sets great store by any help he can give to the Minister of Labour in Northern Ireland on training and retraining developments. I think that is perhaps the most important issue of all, other than the decision about the Common Market. If we can give any help to the Northern Ireland Government in improving and perfecting their training and retraining facilities we shall be extremely glad to do so. Meanwhile, we have the excellent news that Carreras is bringing a big factory to employ 1,500 people and Michelin is bringing a factory to employ 2,000 people. The Hall Report is not the final word. These two facts alone suffice to show it.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 198.

Division No. 7.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Blackburn, F.
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Blyton, William
Bowles, Frank


Bacon, Miss Alice
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Boyden, James


Baird, John
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. w.)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.




Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parker, John


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T.


Cliffe, Michael
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Collick, Percy
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jeger, George
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Darling, George
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, G, W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dodds, Norman
Kenyon, Clifford



Donnelly, Desmond
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lawson, George
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Edelman, Maurice
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, Edward


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Slater, Mrs. Harrlet (Stoke, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Lipton, Marcus
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lubbock, Eric
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Calpern, Sir Myer
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacDermot, Niall
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Greenwood, Anthony
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stonehouse, John


Grey, Charles
McLeavy, Frank
Stones, William


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingier, Stephen


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Marsh, Richard
Taverne, D.


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Mason, Roy
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Gunter, Ray
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Milan, Bruce
Thorpe, Jeremy


Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward
Wade, Donald


Hayman, F. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, William


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Monslow, Walter
Weitzman, David


Herbison, Miss Margaret

White, Mrs. Eirene


Hewitson Capt. M.
Moody, A. S.
Willey, Frederick


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Mulley, Frederick
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Holman, Percy
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Holt, Arthur
Oswald, Thomas
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hooson, H. E.
Owen, Will
Wyatt, Woodrow


Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.
Zillacus, K.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.



Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. McCann and Mr. Whitlock.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Aitken, W. T.
Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Costain, A. P.
Harrison Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Allason, James
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Atkins, Humphrey
Crowder, F. P.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Balniel, Lord
Cunningham, Knox
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Barber, Anthony
Curran, Charles
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Barter, John
Currie, G. B. H
Hendry, Forbes


Batsford, Brian
Dance, James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Holland, Philip


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Hopkins, Alan


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, R. P.


Berkeley, Humphry
Doughty, Charles
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.


Bidgood, John C.
Drayson, G. B.
Hughes-Young, Michael


Biffen, John
du Cann, Edward
Hulbert, Sir Norman


Biggs-Davison, John
Duncan, Sir James
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Elliot Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Iremonger, T. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Black, Sir Cyril
Errington, Sir Eric
James, David


Bossom, Clive
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Farr, John
Jennings, J. C.


Box, Donald
Fisher, Nigel
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brewis, John
Forrest, George
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Freeth, Denzil
Kershaw, Anthony


Buck, Antony
Gammans, Lady
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David
Leburn, Gilmour


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Goodhart, Philip
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Goodhew, Victor
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Gary, Sir Robert
Cough, Frederick
Litchfield, Capt. John


Channon, H. P. G.
Green, Alan
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Chataway, Christopher
Gresham Cooke, R,
Longbottom, Charles


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gurden, Harold
Longden, Gilbert


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Loveys, Walter H.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McAdden, Sir Stephen







McArthur, Ian
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


McLaren, Martin
Peel, John
Stevens, Geoffrey


McLaughlin, Mrs, Patricia
Percival, Ian
Studholme, Sir Henry


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Tapsell, Peter


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)
Pitt, Dame Edith
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Pott, Percivall
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)


McMaster, Stanley R.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Teeling, Sir William


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries)
Pym, Francis
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Maddan, Martin
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maitland, Sir John
Ramsden, James
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon




Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marshall, Douglas
Rawlinson, Sir Peter
Vane, W. M. F.


Marten, Neil
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Mawby, Ray
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Renton, Rt. Hon. David
Ward, Dame Irene


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Webster, David


Mills, Stratton
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey
Whitelaw, William


Miscampbell, Norman
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Morgan, William
Roots, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Wise, A. R.


Neave, Airey
Russell, Ronald
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
St. Clair, M.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Sharples, Richard
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Skeet, T. H. H.



Osborn, John (Hallam)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd Chiswlck)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Page, Graham (Crosby)
Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Mr. Chichester-Clark


Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Speir, Rupert
and Mr. Finlay.

Main Question put and agreed to.


Resolved,


That this House takes note of the Report of the Joint Working Party on the Economy of Northern Ireland presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Command Paper No. 1835).

Orders of the Day — CUTLERY AND FLATWARE INDUSTRY (RESEARCH LEVY)

10.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): I beg to move,
That the Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.
This Order, if it is approved by Parliament, will be made under the authority of Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. As the House will recall, this Act provides that charges may be imposed by Order on persons engaged in an industry if it thought to be expedient for funds to be made available for various purposes of which the most important is scientific research. Two years ago the cutlery industry asked that a levy should be imposed on firms in the industry to provide funds which, with a grant from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, would finance the cost of collective scientific research on behalf of the industry by the Cutlery Research Council. As a result of this approach, the 1960 Order came into operation on 1st January, 1961. The grant from the D.S.I.R. was made conditional on the scale of research being expanded at the end of two years and this involves an increase in the industrial contribution towards the cost as well as an increase in the amount of the Government grant.
The primary purpose of this Order, which replaces that made two years ago, is to increase the contribution from the industry from £9,000 a year to just on £14,000. On an industrial income of £9,000 the D.S.I.R. grant has been £6,000. But when £14,000 a year is contributed by the industry the Government grant will rise to £9,000. Therefore, as a result of the Order the amount available for research will be increased from £15,000 to £23,000 a year. These resources will be used on research and development projects, a technical inquiry—sometimes referred to as the "trouble shooting" service—and the dissemination of scientific and technical information. Because labour costs account

for between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent. of the cost of the manufacture of cutlery and flatware the main research effort will be devoted to increasing the degree of mechanisation and to reducing the number of manufacturing operations. All British cutlery must sell abroad on quality and, therefore, improvements in quality must be and are intended to be an important and significant part of the research programme.
That programme includes research on knife and scissor grinding, on multiple polishing, on abrasive operations and on the metallurgy of the edges of knives and scissors. The "trouble-shooting" service will absorb about 30 per cent. of the resources of the Research Association and the dissemination of information some 10 per cent. of those resources. These activities of the Research Association are particularly important in this industry which has so many very small firms specialising in one or a very few of the operations for the manufacture of cutlery and flatware.
The basis on which the levy has been imposed for the last two years remains unchanged, but the rate has been increased by half to provide the additional income required and a general exemption of the first £3,000 of annual turnover has been introduced in place of the existing exemption of businesses with a turnover of less than £1,000 a year. The exemption of the first £3,000 of turnover will reduce the number of firms liable to pay the levy under the Order from 280 to about 190. This illustrates to the House the number of very small firms there are in this industry. This is a reduction of about one-third. Furthermore, it will relieve small firms with a turnover of less than £10,000 of any increase in their contribution. Therefore, only firms in the industry with a turnover of £10,000 or more will have to pay an increased contribution.
The Cutlery Research Council, which has been responsible for this scientific research on behalf of the industry, has been reconstituted at the suggestion of the D.S.I.R. to bring its constutition into line with the common pattern of grant-aided research associations. It has now become an incorporated body under the title of the Cutlery and Allied Trades Research Association. This change is reflected in the Order.
The opportunity provided by the need for a new Order to secure additional funds for scientific research has been taken to stop a loophole in the provisions of the 1960 Order in relation to businesses in the industry which change hands between the base period—that is to say, on the turnover of which the levy is charged—and the levy period.
The Order 'has been drafted in complete accord with the wishes of the trade organisation representative of manufacturers in the industry, and with the support of the trade union to which the workpeople belong. The House will be pleased to know that the industry has an excellent export record amounting to roughly one-third of its annual production. The annual production of this industry as defined for the purposes of the Order is about £10 million a year and it is exporting about £3½ million. I believe that with the increased scientific research made possible by this increase in levy the industry will be able to meet increased competition at home and at the same time maintain and expand the substantial level of export it has achieved hitherto.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: The 1960 Order passed through the House without any discussion. I think it is time that we had a look at the industry and what it has been doing. I begin by commenting on the constitutional position. These research associations, so far as they are not financed out of the trades in question, are financed by grants from the D.S.I.R. For the operations of the D.S.I.R. the noble Lord the Minister for Science and his Parliamentary Secretary, whom I am glad to see here tonight, are responsible to Parliament. The Orders, however, are brought forward by the Board of Trade. The money which is collected by the levy on the industry is paid to the Board of Trade. We have a diarchy of a kind which exemplifies the worst possible feature of the modern British Constitution.
This is a question of research in trade, and those high powers who regulate these things should consider whether it is logical that not one but two Ministries should have an interfering hand in these matters. I should like to see the whole business of research and development

handed over—I do not say to the D.S.I.R., although there is ground for saying that on its statutory responsibilities, but at any rate to the Minister for Science. That does not for one moment mean that I do not take anything but the most acute personal pleasure at seeing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade here tonight. It is one advantage of diarchy that we see two competent gentlemen instead of only one.
With that friendly introduction, let us begin to see what the Order does. As I understand it, it does three things. One is a matter of perhaps comparatively small importance—a change in the form of the body which deals with research in the industry.
Hitherto it has been a Council unincorporated, and all my researches have failed to tell me how it ever came into being. It seems to have just grown up, like Topsy. However, it grew up. We are now to proceed to the comparative respectability of a company for the purpose. I should like to know who is to be represented on that company and how the directors or shareholders—there will not be any shareholders presumably; I suppose that it will be a company by guarantee—the people who effectively run it are to be appointed, and whether there is any provision which will enable us to look at that appointment from time to time to see if it is working properly.
The second thing that it does is to relieve the needy knife-grinder. The needy knife-grinder was, I think, invented by George Canning, who inquired where he was going and said that the road was rough and his wheel was out of order—"bleak blows the blast." At the moment we are rather passing the last Governmental depression. It was blowing quite bleak a little time ago and it may, perhaps, for this particular trade, be blowing a bit bleak, as I shall show in a minute, if we have to go into the Common Market. Finally, we end up by discovering that the needy knife-grinder's hat had a hole in it, and so had his breeches. I do not know what escaped through the hole, but apparently his technical intelligence is no longer to be financed out of his own purse which has slipped down through his breeches, and whoever is going to teach him what to do, it is not going to be done that way.
I know that this trade is full of needy knife-grinders, but the number is tending to decrease, and I am not quite clear why it was necessary or advisable to take them out of the provisions of the levy. However, I have no doubt that there is some sufficient reason which we can be given for that.
What I cannot follow is the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic. The present levy amounts to £9,200, and I take that figure from the D.S.I.R. Report for 1961. The hon. Gentleman cannot differ from me much because he said that it was a little over £9,000. We add 50 per cent., that is to say, instead of 10s. on a certain turnover we have 15s. and we then deduct from it whatever is saved by letting the needy knife-grinder off. The result we get, apparently, is £14,000. That is not my arithmetic.
I wish that the hon. Gentleman would tell us in a little more detail what is the effect of this Order. Is the levy on the ordinary members of the trade, if I may so put it, increased by 50 per cent.?—I understood that it was—and is that increase subject to a reduction, as I understand there is a twofold reduction, because he mentioned not only the needy knife-grinder but also another case in connection with a rather small turnover? Having added 50 per cent. to £9,200 which, if my arithmetic is right, would make it £13,000, and having taken from that figure an unknown sum but presumably of some importance, we then reach a figure of £14,000 which, as the late Mr. Euclid used to say, is absurd. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the correct figures. After all, this really is a very small sum. This is a trade which produces, we were told, about £10 million worth of stuff a year and it exports about one-third of that. It is, therefore, a very important trade. It should clearly have every attention, and the attention should be both prompt and sufficient. I can hardly feel that the attention is satisfactorily provided by a levy of £13,000 or £14,000 from the trade, and a D.S.I.R. grant that will now go up to £9,000 a year—£23,000 a year spent on research by an industry whose out-turn is about £10 million and which has a very important export function to fulfil.
I was very glad to hear that the trade's export position is improving, because this research work is largely needed to enable our cutlery trade to compete with that of other countries. There is very good reason for helping this competition, because when the Working Party reported on the trade in 1947 the position was far from satisfactory. At that time, Germany accounted for 50 per cent. of the world's total cutlery exports, and the United Kingdom had only 22 per cent. I understand that this country imported more from Germany than we exported to Germany. What is the position now? If there has not been the very material improvement one would hope for, one makes two comments. First: what has the industry been doing with the money it has spent on research? Secondly—and I repeat this: is the amount now to be provided for research sufficient?
When I turn to what the industry has been doing, I look at the same Report and I find a number of recommendations—with which I certainly will not dream of troubling the House in detail at this hour—in which the Working Party is very expansive about the research that is required. The mechanisation of the industry to which the hon. Gentleman has referred as something in the future was equally in the future in 1947. What has happened about mechanising the industry during the fifteen years from 1947 or, to shorten the time, what has happened to that mechanisation during the eleven years in which Tory Governments have been in power? What have Tory Governments done to see that these researches actually effected the kind of results hoped for in the Working Party Report?
I turn from that Report to the 1961 annual report of this Cutlery Research Council, and I find a number of things proposed. They are all excellent things. I am no expert in making cutlery—and there are some very strange phrases in the trade, as anyone will find if they look at some of the processes mentioned in the Order—but it looks to my untutored eye as though a lot of the things in pages 6 and 7 of the last annual report that are now called research projects are things that were recommended fifteen years ago by the Working Party. If so, what has been done since then?
This is a nice little, tight industry. They all get along very well with one


another. Some of their premises are hopelessly insanitary, or were in 1947. The little master was an admirable figure, but, according to the Working Party Report, provided abominable conditions. It seems to be one of the industries that require a little watching from a Government concerned with the rather lamentable show that British industry has been making in recent years in comparison with the rest of the world. This really is an opportunity of pushing the industry forward a bit. Perhaps a slightly larger research grant might more than repay the additional money spent. A great deal of this depends on what we have not been told—though I hope that we shall be told—about the competitive position of the industry compared with the rest of the world.
One does not get much light on that. It is true that they had a look around Germany and America, and I have with me their Report about it. It is interesting, and I think I summarise it fairly when I say that there is no doubt that there is a good deal of real, old skill in this industry in this country. There is also no doubt that, while some of the things they produce contain admirable workmanship—often in rather small quantities—it is very doubtful whether their progress has been quite sufficient.
When one looks at the degree of mechanisation in the American industry, as shown in the Report about which I am speaking, one is, on the one hand, even more sympathetic with the Parliamentary Secretary's wish that there should he more mechanisation and, on the other, even more curious why there has been so little mechanisation in the past, particularly since the Working Party's Report was published not long after the end of the war.
Thus, while one is not disposed to oppose the Order—indeed, one's feeling is that the amount proposed by way of levy is probably insufficient; certainly that the accompanying amount of D.S.I R. support does look insufficient—one is entitled to ask the Parliamentary Secretary which these people have been doing by way of research during the past 15 years, what is the present position compared with other countries on the export side, and is it really sufficient to secure the competitive position of this industry in what may well be a more

draughty world if we go into the Common Market? Will the industry, when "bleak blows the blast," have holes in their hats and their breeches, in the words of Canning's needy knife grinder, and be able to stand up to the foreign competition of industries which, in America at any rate, are more highly mechanised?
I come now to a small, personal confession which has some point. I am a little luxurious about nail scissors and I have long found that the best ones, alas, do not come from Sheffield. It may be that I have not gone to the right places or have not tried for long enough. But if that is so—and it certainly seems to be the case in some London shops—what is Sheffield doing about it? I do not know how much research is needed into nail scissors, and probably more is needed into other things, but I am not happy about the smell of this trade.
I am not a Sheffield hon. Member and I suppose I can say things which a Sheffield hon. Member might jump upon, but we are interested in the export drive and the competitive position of the industry. It has not got a very good record in some things—premises and working conditions—and we are anxious that it should be modernised, particularly in those respects we must consider tonight the modernisation of its methods and what it is going, to do.
Trouble-shooting is an excellent thing. We have quite a lot of it in the Boot and Shoe Research Association. For example: Question: "How is it that Little Harry's shoes collapsed after a week's wear?" Answer: "Because Little Harry chucked them in the fire when mummy was not looking." That is called "trouble-shooting", I have no doubt that the same sort of thing could be applied to table knives, for we can all readily think of appropriate questions and answers. But 30 per cent. of the total expenditure leads to the comment that while that may he all right for trouble-shooting, it does not leave enough for the rest of the expenditure we have in mind. It makes me feel that a hit more is needed. If the industry cannot afford it—and it may be that it cannot; there is some evidence for that in the papers. I see—then I think that the D.S.I.R. ought to do a little more about it.
Lastly, I hope that the needy knife-grinders, the small men who are going to be exempted from the levy, even if they do not pay the levy will still be in a position to profit from any improvements which may be adduced to them, probably much smaller improvements than would affect the larger firms, and that full steps will be taken to see that not only are the researches made but also, so far as the Government can see, that they are applied and, at any rate, that the trade is informed of exactly what can be done.
This is a rather sketchy Report, the last Report of the Research Council. I do not want to criticise it too much because no doubt it is so very much concentrated in the town of Sheffield that there are other means of disseminating information which may be just as good. Therefore, having asked the hon. Gentleman a number of questions and made some criticisms of his Order, none of what I have said being, as I see it, a ground for opposing the Order because it is mainly on its insufficiency, I sit down.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley: Although I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has been rather hard on this industry, I shall personally, as an hon. Member representing a Sheffield constituency, make it my business to convey his point about the quality of nail scissors to the manufacturers concerned.
As the Parliamentary Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend have said, this is characteristically an industry of small firms. In that connection I think that there will be much interest in the figures which the Parliamentary Secretary has given about the decline in the number of small firms that will be involved as a result of this Order. I wonder if at the same time the hon. Gentleman could say whether there will also be a tendency for the total number of firms in the industry to decline also, or whether it will be only a decline as a result of the drafting of the levy. I certainly hope that such fruits of the research association as will be profitable to the small firms will be available to them even though on turnover grounds they are not participants in the scheme.
I wonder also whether there has been any change in the computation of turnover as the basis of the levy or whether the present Order follows the previous one in that regard. I have had no representations made to me personally about the Order, but can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether, in fact, the pressure or the initiative for the change has come mainly from the D.S.I.R. or whether representations have been made about the new form and about the particulars of the Order from the trade, and whether there has been any substantial body of criticism from big or small firms?
My hon. and learned Friend, as indeed did the Parliamentary Secretary, made some reference to the export performance of this industry. Having regard to its size, I think that it has made quite a contribution, although I am bound to say, whether inside the Common Market or outside it, we must remember that in E.F.T.A. there are countries with substantial cutlery interests as well. I think that the industry is going to have a difficult time.
I wonder whether in these days, when matters of design, salesmanship and market research are very much scientific matters, the Order will be wide enough if there is a demand within the trade for research on questions of design, packaging and matters of that sort as well as research into methods of production—what one would imagine is scientific research in the rather narrower sense.
I had a great disappointment recently when I went into one of the largest departmental stores in Paris when it was making for Christmas a particularly large display of imported goods. Even after interviewing the buyer concerned, I found it impossible to find a knife made in Sheffield. The only thing the store could produce from Sheffield was a silver-plated coffee set, although there were knives, flatware and cutlery from almost every country. There were kitchen knives on display but not, I am sorry to say, from Sheffield.
Particularly because of the intense competition and the small size of many of them, I feel that firms may have to look again at their traditional export performance. I have advocated many times that there should be an attempt


to secure co-operative selling organisation among firms which are not in other respects direct competitors, for example people who make scissors and penknives and flatware manufacturers. They might get together to make a bigger selling organisation than an individual firm could produce.
It is also true that the modernisation and equipment of many firms are not as good and up-to-date as we should like them to be. At the same time, there are firms which have gone to great lengths to bring themselves up to standards both of cleanliness and technical efficiency. This industry suffered for many years from an extremely vicious imposition of Purchase Tax. After representations, silverware and mother of pearl were taken out of special categories. The matter is not so serious today, but knives, forks and spoons are the only essential articles in daily use which have been subject to Purchase Tax throughout the period of Purchase Tax itself. Yet when I was a prisoner-of-war I was given by the Germans a knife, fork and spoon. I did not find much use for anything but the spoon, but even in those primitive conditions these were regarded everywhere as essential articles.
This is not the only or perhaps the main problem for the trade, but it has been one of its problems in development, in investment and possibly in seeking export markets. The trade, having regard to all the circumstances, has done a good job, though I feel that by co-operation and a more vigorous approach it might be able to do even better in the future. The industry is not only to be judged by the actual figures of its exports. Many of the firms in my constituency make a contribution to the quality of British goods. The fact that the finest cutlery and flatware in the world is made in Sheffield is, because these products are seen in shop windows, a general advertisement for the quality of British workmanship.
The industry has problems in craftsmanship. The number of skilled craftsmen is declining. The industry has made efforts to carry on the standard but it has not been very much helped by the Board of Trade which recently removed some of the incentives and concessions which were designed to assist in this direction. Not only in the D.S.I.R., but

probably in the Board of Trade as well, people ought to look at this industry and see whether they cannot do a little more to help it in connection with Purchase Tax and in promoting exports than, I tend to think, they have done in the past.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: One or two comments have been made from the other side of the House, not so much by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), which need correcting. It is not fair to give the impression that the cutlery industry is asleep because a Working Party came to that conclusion 14 years ago. The impression I receive from the outside—I am not in the industry—is that the leaders of the industry have brought it together chiefly by creating the research council mentioned in the Order, which will have a new name after the debate.
The point about the industry is that it is getting together. The bigger and more progressive firms are, by and large, helping some of the weaker ones which have not the resources to help themselves. That is apparent from the Measure before us.
As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, a fair amount of work is being done by the research section in Hoyle Street in connection with mechanisation and with what has been seen in America. It should be remembered that the Sheffield cutlery industry has technical people who have travelled and know what their competitors throughout the world are doing. Many firms are bringing in machinery, from abroad if necessary, and adopting the best methods for producing their goods.
Reference was made to knife grinding. I have seen machines for the multiple grinding of knives. Much of the manual work is being taken out of the process. That has happened within the last few years, and that development is going ahead. I do not say that the industry should be satisfied. It is not satisfied, and that is one of the reasons for this Order; but progress has been made. There is also magazine loading of machines for making components. It would be wrong—

Mr. Mitchison: The reference to knife grinding was not mine but George Canning's. He is dead.

Mr. Osborn: That is fair enough. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to that. Canning may be dead, but so is the Report of the Working Party, which is 14 years old now. That has been noted, and suitable action has been taken over the intervening years and will continue to be taken after this Order.
With regard to exports, it would be wrong to minimise the changes in designs which have been considered and adopted by the cutlery industry. In any factory or showroom new designs are now available; admittedly, many of these have been the result of the endeavour of individual firms but others have resulted from joint efforts.
I have visited several firms recently. The Factories Act is being applied, and many of the less satisfactory conditions are being eliminated. There is progress throughout the industry in working conditions. So it would be wrong to say that the intervening years have been wasted. The cutlery industry is well prepared to enter the competition which it knows it will find when we enter the Common Market.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. D. Price: I will try briefly to answer one or two of the points raised.
First, with regard to the diarchy, which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) does not like, the plain fact is that this Order and previous ones have come under a 1947 Statute. If the Statute is ever recast, it may be that it would be more convenient to put this under the Minister for Science. That accounts for it, and because of the diarchy hon. Members see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Science here tonight.
There was some exaggeration in the suggestion that the only research done by the industry has been done through this research association. Whereas at one end we have the very small firms, there are also some very substantially larger ones many of which do a certain amount of research. Many are members of B.I.S.R.A.
Of course, in B.I.S.R.A. there is fundamental research on such things as casting. All these casting firms do co-operative research. It is in the rather narrow field of some of the matters I listed that one finds what in a large organisa-

tion one would regard as applied research. It is difficult to draw the distinction between basic research and applied research, but that must be borne in mind. This is not the totality of the research effort.
It is also inevitable that, where there are many small firms in an industry, if one is to give assistance to them, quite a high percentage of the research association's income will have to be spent on What we call, loosely, "troubleshooting." I do not like the phrase but it is growing up in common parlance. It goes a little deeper than the sort of sales complaint hon. Members have experienced in boots and shoes.
In the chemical industry in which I used to work we would call it technical service which is in support of sales. If one gets a serious complaint from a customer and looks back at the process of, say, knife grinding, I do not think one can dismiss it as one would in the case of children playing with knives to fight each other then mother complaining that they are too blunt to carve the meat.
In dealing with the mathematics of the income of the research association, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering did not allow for the smallness of firms which are staying out. Ninety will be below the minimum turnover figure required to have to pay a levy. The proportion of 'turnover remains the same under this Order as under previous Orders.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about imports in relation to exports. He will be delighted to know that imports last year were broadly half of our exports, which is encouraging. It would, I think, be expanding the rules of order too far if I followed the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) into some of his suggestions for exporting. We naturally would like to see any co-operative efforts firms may see fit to adopt on exports. That is true of his industry among others.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked whether the number of smaller firms was declining. There has been a slight decline which has been due to amalgamations rather than to a general reduction in activity.

Mr. Mitchison: That is not quite the question I asked. I really asked two.


Both derived from the Working Party's Report. First, at that time Germany had 50 per cent. of the world export trade and we had 22 per cent. Has that proportion improved? Secondly, has our total export figure gone up? If so, by about how much?

Mr. Price: I have not the figures with me, but I will be happy to write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I was explaining that the number of small firms had been declining mainly due to amalgamations. The Order refers to 90 firms. These have a turnover of between £2,500 and £3,000 a year, and on that basis it might be reasonable and proper to have more amalgamations. But hon. Members from Sheffield know that it is possible, because of horizontal operations in the industry, for people in very small factories which are not much more than rooms really to be able to make a small contribution. To those of us who come from heavy industry, it seems rather peculiar in this modern age, but if they can earn a good living and produce good results—and we see that on their export records—who are we to say that it might be tidier if they did it all in big firms?

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the particular question I put to him several times? How far is this industry still engaged in carrying out the recommendations that were made in the Working Party's Report in 1947?

Mr. Price: Mechanisation is an almost continual process, and it must be inevitable that, so long as there are these very small firms, there must be a limit to how far they can mechanise. With a turnover of £3,000 a year they are not likely to be in a position to mechanise to any great extent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) pointed out, the large firms at the top have a very impressive record of keeping up to date in the type of machinery he referred to.
We have this structure in the industry between bigger firms which have the resources and the very small firms, which strikes one as pre-Industrial Revolution, almost like a cottage industry. One cannot expect them to mechanise, but they appear to be able to make a living. As long as they are able to

make a living, who are we to say that they are carrying on their activities inefficiently?

Mr. Mitchison: In spite of the Working Party's Report in 1947, I can trace no research association or anything of the kind until the 1960 Order which we are replacing today. Am I right, or was there an earlier one?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Cutlery and Stainless Steel Flatware Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order, 1962, a draft of which was laid before this House on 30th October, be approved.

Orders of the Day — WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,

That for the remainder of the present Session the following paragraphs shall have effect:
(1) There shall be a Standing Committee, to be known as the Welsh Grand Committee, to consider such specified matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire as may be referred to them and to consist of all Members sitting for constituencies in Wales and Monmouthshire, together with not more than twenty-five other Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection, who shall have regard in such nomination to the approximation of the balance of parties in the Committee to that in the whole House, and shall have power from time to time to discharge the Members so nominated by them and to appoint others in substitution for those discharged:
(2) A Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public Business, to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect that a specified matter or matters relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration, and if, on the question thereupon being put, not less than ten Members rise in their places and signify their objection thereto, Mr. Speaker shall declare that the noes have it.
(3) If such a Motion be agreed to, the Welsh Grand Committee shall consider the matter or matters to them referred on not more than four days in a Session, and shall report only that they have considered the said matter or matters.—[Mr. McLaren.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,

That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session relating to agriculture, it is expedient to authorize—
A. The payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) grants towards the cost of constructing, enlarging or adapting buildings for occupation and use by farmers' machinery


syndicates and of providing such buildings with such services, means of access and other works as are reasonably required, being grants of an amount not exceeding one-third of that cost (or of a specified amount treated as that cost);
(2) grants to bodies of persons engaged in organising, promoting or developing co-operation in agriculture or horticulture (including any activities carried on in connection therewith) or co-operation in the marketing of agricultural or horticultural produce;
(3) grants towards the cost of carrying out approved proposals for promoting the efficient marketing of agricultural or horticultural produce, for carrying out research connected therewith, for making the result of such research available to producers of such produce, or for the formation of bodies carrying on agricultural or horticultural producers' marketing businesses, and contributions to the expenses incurred in connection with the examination of proposals by persons whose support is required as a condition of approval;
(4) grants in respect of land used for growing crops for the winter feeding of livestock;
(5) grants in respect of land under grass or similar crops which is renovated by the carrying out of operations thereon;
(6) compensation for things seized for the purpose of preventing the spread of certain diseases of animals and poultry or of things which could be so seized but are destroyed, buried or disposed of without being seized;
(7) any expenses incurred in making arrangements for making vaccine against fowl pest available at prices designed to encourage its use;
(8) any sums necessary to enable any Minister of the Crown to make payments to persons who are displaced from land used by them for the purposes of agriculture, being land which is so used by way of a trade or business; and
(9) any expenses of administration incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the said Act of this Session.
B. Any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any enactment attributable to any provision of the said Act of this Session—

(1) increasing to thirty million pounds the maximum amount that may be paid in the aggregate by way of grants under section 1 of the Hill Farming Act 1946;

(2) adding four years to the periods by reference to which or days in which the making of subsidy payments is authorised by section 13 of the said Act of 1946;
(3) increasing to ninety million pounds the maximum amount that may be paid in the aggregate by way of grants under Part II of the Agriculture Act 1957; and
(4) extending contributions under the Agriculture (Fertilisers) Act 1952 to fertilisers used by growers of mushrooms, and to fertilisers applied to the crop instead of to the soil.
C. Any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums which may be or are to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund or raised by borrowing under the Sugar Act 1956.
D. Any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland.
E. Any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable into the Exchequer under any other enactment.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [21st November]

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session relating to agriculture it is expedient to authorise any increase—

(a) in the rate of any surcharge payable to the Sugar Board by virtue of section 7 of the Sugar Act 1956; or
(b) in the amount of any distribution repayment so payable by virtue of section 15 of the said Act of 1956;
which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of this Session requiring the Sugar Board to purchase sugar to be used as an ingredient of goods to be exported from the Republic of Ireland.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL PARKS

10.58 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

Mr. Nigel Birch: I am moved to speak tonight by some remarks passed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport at the opening of the Hyde Park Corner underpass on 17th October last. He then made it clear that he was planning further encroachments on the Royal Parks.
Perhaps for a moment I might set forth the history of the Park Lane improvement scheme, part of which was this underpass. The scheme includes the work done at Marble Arch, the removal from the Park of the East Carriage Road, the murder of Hamilton Gardens and the work at Hyde Park Corner, including the underpass, and the cutting off at the ends both of Green Park and Buckingham Palace Gardens and also the removal of 50 great trees and 100 smaller ones.
This work has been in contemplation for a long time, and the plan came up when I was Minister of Works in 1955. I was opposed to the scheme for the following reasons. The Royal Parks are the principal glory of London. There is nothing to compare with them in any capital city in the world which I have visited. Ever since the original Royal gifts, the Royal Parks have been jealously guarded and preserved. It is not true to say that there have been no encroachments whatever, but such encroachments as there have been before this scheme have been very small.
Under the so-called Park Lane improvement scheme, 21½ acres of land was removed from Hyde Park and Green Park. This was three times as great as all the previous encroachments put together I felt that this was a change, not in degree, but in kind. It meant the breach of a principle, and if this House was willing to give up such a large slice of the Royal Parks, it would be very difficult in future to object in principle to further encroachments and, also, claims for further encroachments would certainly he made for that very reason.
Those were the principal arguments which I put, but I also put to my colleagues

this point. The traffic problem in London is highly intractable. The real difficulty is that we are trying to get a quart and a half into a pint pot, and taking a slice off the Royal Parks is not likely to make any drastic difference to that problem. Furthermore, why start on the Royal Parks anyway? Those were the arguments which I put to my colleagues. While I was Minister of Works, I remained master of the field, and so did my immediate successor, now Lord Hailes.
Afterwards, Lord Hailes' successor gave way and the Park Lane Improvement Bill was brought in early in 1958. By that time, I had resigned from the Treasury and I spoke during the passage of the Bill in Parliament. I rehearsed in my speech the arguments which I have already given, but I made one further point about the traffic. I said that the scheme would result in transferring the bottleneck at Hyde Park Corner to Piccadilly and Knightsbridge.
That brings me to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport on 17th October. In that speech, he said "I have been considering the future." Then, he echoed exactly the words I had said. He said, "We have transferred the bottleneck from Hyde Park Corner to Piccadilly and Knightsbridge", which shows, I suppose, as some backhanded consolation, that it is sometimes possible by the help of unaided reason to reach a conclusion reached only a few years later by the experts.
My right hon. Friend the Minister continued his speech. He said that he had a plan. Nobody wins any marks for guessing what it was: the dimmest child at a special school would have guessed it years ago. The plan was to take another slice off the Royal Parks. What the child might not have anticipated, as, indeed, many other people might not have done, was that my right hon. Friend referred to his plan as "very juicy".
What does the Minister's plan mean? His main plan was to use South Carriage Road, in Hyde Park. That would mean that the buses would roar past the best flower beds and shrub borders in the Park, deposit their bouquet of scent upon the horses and riders in the Row and then go on. It hon. Members will


think of the topography of the Park, they will see that obviously the scheme could not stop at Hyde Park, because the South Carriage Road ends at a T-junction with the West Carriage Road, which carries on over the Serpentine bridge. This scheme would make no sense whatever unless a substantial slice was taken off the south end of Kensington Gardens. That, I strongly suspect, is what the plan actually is, to drive a road past the long Flower Walk in Kensington Gardens which has given such deep pleasure to many and gives pleasure to me to this day.
Burt why stop there? If the East Carriage Drive is taken out, there is no reason why the South Carriage Drive should not be taken out. And what about the North Carriage Drive? There is a lot of traffic north of the Park and the aesthetic reasons for preserving the South Carriage Drive are far greater than for preserving the North Carriage Drive. I have little doubt that if the Minister of Transport gets his way, and manages to get hold of the South Carriage Drive, it will be logically put to him, and he will accept it, that the North Carriage Drive should also be taken away.
What will happen then? There will be another ceremony, I do not know whether by this Government or a Labour Government. A Labour Government welcomed the butchery of the Park before. They were delighted about it and so were the London County Council. One Government or another will do it and I think that a Labour Government would be more likely to do it than a Conservative Government.
What speech will the Minister of Transport, whoever he may be, make at the opening of the new scheme when both the North and South Carriage Drives are taken out of the Park? I do not think that anyone deserves any prize for guessing what the speech will be. It is simple. He will say, "I am concerned about the future … I am advised that this great scheme will result in a total blockage by day and by night of both ends of Church Street"—as indeed it would. He will say, "My plan is juicier yet. What we need are up-and-down roads within the Park, and there they are, the East Carriage Drive going over the Serpentine and the Broad

Walk to Kensington Gardens. I have a nasty feeling that some such horrid proposal may be forthcoming.
Is there any way of stopping this at all? I am not very optimistic. The manner may be improved a little. When Victor Emanuel despoiled the Pope of his temporal estates in Italy he told the Pope that he did it
…with the affection of a son, the faith of a Catholic and the honour of a king.
If he had said that it was a juicy plan anyway, the unification of Italy might have been attended by graver difficulties than it was. If the people are once again to be despoiled, I hope it will be done with a little more grace.
But whether people will rise in their wrath or not, I do not know. I was disappointed that the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport aroused so little opposition or interest. There was a ladylike article opposing him in The Times and there was an equally ladylike article opposing the Park Lane scheme, and then The Times backed down. Maudie Little-hampton made an acid comment, as she so often does, but nothing very much else happened.
I hope that the people who do care about the Parks will rally round. I, if I am spared, and such a scheme comes before Parliament, shall certainly oppose it with such strength as God may give me. I may be spitting in the wind, but at least I shall spit.

11.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Richard Sharples): I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) for raising this subject on the Adjournment tonight. As one who has lived almost the whole of his life within walking distance of one or other of the Royal Parks, I entirely agree with him that these parks are something that we as Londoners anyway, and those who have responsibility for them, should cherish and defend against all corners. I agree with him, too, that it is very easy to think of using the Royal Parks to get us out of our difficulties when London is so very heavily built up and it is difficult to take room in any other direction.
We are very fortunate that every proposal to try to pinch a piece of the Royal Parks produces its own reaction and that there are plenty of those, both inside and outside the House, who love the parks and are ready, like my right hon. Friend, to defend them against any encroachment whenever that is threatened. It is true also that successive Commissioners and Ministers of Works, including my right hon. Friend when he held that position, have themselves defended the Royal Parks against encroachment.
It is not only from Government Departments that the parks have had to be defended in the past. I think I am right in saying that Queen Caroline at one time wanted to enclose Kensington Gardens and she asked her Prime Minister what would be the cost of the operation. His reply to her was that it would cost a Crown. We can see opposite Knightsbridge Barracks in Hyde Park the barren waste that there is where a part of the park was taken for the 1851 Exhibition.
There are two safeguards. First, any alienation of the parks would and does require legislation, so it cannot be done by the back door, as it were. Secondly—I give this assurance to my right hon. Friend—my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works accepts without question the policy of his predecessors, including that of my right hon. Friend himself, that there should he no violation of the Royal Parks, unless it is shown to be essential in the public interest and that the lost amenity in comparison with the benefit gained is small.
My right hon. Friend referred to the traffic problems. I am sure he will not expect me this evening to go into the details or discuss the traffic arrangements outside the Royal Parks. It is not surprising that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has cast his eye on the Royal Parks as a part of the solution to London's traffic problems. I do not believe that my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Transport is by any means the first Minister of Transport who has looked in this direction for a solution. It is a fact that we must face that the boundaries of the Royal Parks are close to highways which have very heavy traffic. The North Carriage Drive is close to Bayswater Road. The

South Carriage Drive is alongside Knightsbridge, where the traffic is very heavy indeed. The Green Park is alongside Piccadilly. If it is necessary to increase the traffic flow on these roads by widening or introducing one-way systems, it is perfectly natural for the traffic experts, who look at the problem from the point of view of traffic, to look at the park roads and the park boundaries as a part of their examination of the problem.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport referred in his speech at the opening of the underpass to the possibility of using the South Carriage Drive. It is a fact, too, that the South Carriage Drive has in the past been used for commercial traffic during emergencies in order to make Knightsbridge into a one-way route. None the less, the Minister of Transport has made it clear that in any proposal of this kind he has a duty to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works before putting forward any firm proposal of this kind, and I can tell the House that the first reaction of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works to this suggestion is that the use of the South Carriage Drive could be seriously detrimental to the amenities of the park. I hope that my right hon. Friend wild accept that assurance.
One of the difficulties that face the Minister of Transport in London is to find space for off-street parking, and it is natural that my right hon. Friend should look at the open spaces of the Royal Parks. On the other hand, what we in the Ministry of Public Building and Works want to do is to get rid of the cars that are now parked on the roads of the park, and which undoubtedly spoil both the look and the general amenity of the parks themselves.
The Hyde Park underground garage will provide some solution to this problem. It provides space for the parking of 1,000 cars, and I think that my right hon. Friend wild agree that when the ground on tap of the car park has been restored, and the grass has grown again, the park itself will be seen to have been very little affected. As the underground parks come into use, it is our policy to


do away with the surface parking. With the opening of the Hyde Park underground park, we have done away with the parking of some 200 cars on the North Carriage Drive, and if and when other underground car parks are opened we hope eventually to eliminate all the surface parking of cars in the Royal Parks except for the spaces one can keep for people who come into the parks in their cars to enjoy the amenities. What we have to do is to do away with the commuter parkers, except in the under-

ground car parks as they come into being.
I think that my right hon. Friend has done a service to the House and to London in general by raising this question, and I hope that he will accept my assurance that my right hon. Friend the present Minister will be no less zealous to defend the Royal Parks than his predecessors.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.